From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Venetucci v. U.S. Dept. of State

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Aug 19, 2009
No. 09-5024 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 19, 2009)

Opinion

No. 09-5024.

Filed On: August 19, 2009.

BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Upon consideration of the order to show cause filed May 15, 2009, the motion for appointment of counsel; and the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, the reply, and the response and clarification, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. With the exception of defendants appealing or defending in criminal cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Notwithstanding appellant's protestations to the contrary, appellant's argument that the United States lacked authority to consent to his trial in Italy on the charge of complicity in premeditated murder is, in essence, a challenge to his conviction on that charge. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3224(1), the country in which appellant was convicted has exclusive jurisdiction over appellant's complaint. We note in addition that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and as frivolous a complaint filed by appellant raising the same issue appellant raises here, see Venetucci v. Department of State, 2005 WL 1521190 (E.D.N.Y. Jun 21, 2005), and that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that dismissal, see Venetucci v. Department of State, 172 Fed. Appx. 337 (2d Cir. 2006).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41


Summaries of

Venetucci v. U.S. Dept. of State

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Aug 19, 2009
No. 09-5024 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 19, 2009)
Case details for

Venetucci v. U.S. Dept. of State

Case Details

Full title:Robert Venetucci, Appellant v. United States Department of State, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Aug 19, 2009

Citations

No. 09-5024 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 19, 2009)