Opinion
3:23-cr-00090 RRB-KFR-03
04-01-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN GLENN PETERSON, II, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (DOCKET 101)
RALPH R. BEISTLINE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant, Kevin Glenn Peterson, II, with a Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction. Docket 101. The motion is opposed by the Government at Docket 102, and Defendant replies at Docket 105. The Magistrate Judge issued a detailed and very thorough Final Report and Recommendation in which it was recommended that the aforesaid motion be denied. Docket 103. Defendant objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation at Docket 106.
The Court has considered all the above and concludes that this Court does have jurisdiction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, to address the charges brought against Defendant by the United States. The language of this statute is clear: “The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”
Here, Defendant was found by a Grand Jury to have committed certain offenses against the laws of the United States and an Indictment was issued. Whether or not Defendant is guilty of these charges is to be determined by a jury of his peers. At this point, however, the Court clearly has jurisdiction to proceed with these matters.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, as well as for all the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge at Docket 103, which report the Court Adopts and Accepts in its entirety, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED