Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Carl Decker, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Carl E. Decker was convicted in district court of driving under the influence and depredation of government property. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Decker's conviction for driving under the influence. The Fourth Circuit denied Decker's motions to file supplemental briefs, as well as his counsel's motion to withdraw from the case. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling without requiring oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-04-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-5196

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Carl E. Decker was convicted in district court of driving under the influence and depredation of government property. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Decker's conviction for driving under the influence. The Fourth Circuit denied Decker's motions to file supplemental briefs, as well as his counsel's motion to withdraw from the case. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling without requiring oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Carl Decker, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Carl E. Decker was convicted in district court of driving under the influence and depredation of government property. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Decker's conviction for driving under the influence. The Fourth Circuit denied Decker's motions to file supplemental briefs, as well as his counsel's motion to withdraw from the case. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling without requiring oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-5196
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    CARL E. DECKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (2:11-cr-00087-RGD-1)
    Submitted:

    March 29, 2012

    Decided:

    April 2, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy Anderson, ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, Virginia
    Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. McBride, United
    Attorney, Jennifer Cantrell-Sutor, Special Assistant
    States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Beach,
    States
    United

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Carl

    E.

    Decker

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    affirming the magistrate judges judgment of conviction after a


    bench trial finding Decker guilty of one count of driving under
    the influence of alcohol, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 13 (2006),
    assimilating Va. Code Ann. 18.2-266(ii) (2009), and one count
    of depredation of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    1361 (2006).

    He was sentenced to three years probation.

    Finding no reversible error, we affirm.


    We
    brief.

    have

    considered

    the

    claims

    raised

    in

    Deckers

    Decker claims there was insufficient evidence to convict

    him of operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

    We find

    that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

    See

    Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).


    Accordingly,

    we

    affirm.

    We

    motions to file supplemental briefs.


    to withdraw.

    deny

    Deckers

    pro

    se

    We deny counsels motion

    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

    You might also like