From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Hope

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 25, 2011
408 F. App'x 695 (4th Cir. 2011)

Summary

affirming per curiam No. 3:09-cr-00039-1, 2010 WL 2405354 (W.D. Va. June 10, 2010) (Moon, J.)

Summary of this case from United States v. Adames

Opinion

No. 10-4620.

Submitted: November 12, 2010.

Decided: January 25, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-nkm-1).

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


William Curtis Hope pled guilty to felony eluding, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817(B) (2010), as assimilated by the Assimilative Crimes Act ("ACA"), 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2006). He appeals, claiming that the assimilated state statute was a traffic law already adopted by 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2010). Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo whether the ACA assimilates a state offense. See United States v. Dotson, 615 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 2010). We conclude there was no error and the Virginia statute was properly assimilated under the ACA. Accordingly, we affirm the court's judgment. See, e.g., United States v. Fox, 60 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Hope

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 25, 2011
408 F. App'x 695 (4th Cir. 2011)

affirming per curiam No. 3:09-cr-00039-1, 2010 WL 2405354 (W.D. Va. June 10, 2010) (Moon, J.)

Summary of this case from United States v. Adames

In U.S. v. Hope, 408 Fed.Appx. 695 (4th Cir. 2011), the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's implicit holding that just because a state statute is also assimilated under section 4.2 does not preclude it also being assimilated under 18 U.S.C. 13. "The 'primary question' is whether 'applicable federal law indicate[s] an intent to punish conduct such as the defendant's to the exclusion of the particular state statute at issue.'"

Summary of this case from United States v. Adames
Case details for

U.S. v. Hope

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Curtis HOPE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jan 25, 2011

Citations

408 F. App'x 695 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

United States v. Adames

36 C.F.R. § 4.2. The Fourth Circuit has addressed this issue. In U.S. v. Hope, 408 Fed.Appx. 695 (4th Cir.…

United States v. Baker

. However, as explained by another District Court, the crime of eluding “is the defiance of an order by the…