US v. Frank Spaulding, No. 08-4859 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4859 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FRANK E. SPAULDING, a/k/a Khalif Immanuel Bey, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00018-JBF-FBS-1) Submitted: April 13, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank E. Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Kosky, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frank E. Spaulding, also known as Khalif Immanuel Bey, appeals theft his of jury public conviction property, and in eighteen-month violation of 18 sentence U.S.C. § for 641 (2006), and making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2006). Spaulding, proceeding pro se, raises several claims that he contends require that his conviction be vacated, including that: (i) as an Aboriginal, Indigenous and Freehold Inhabitant and Moorish-American National, the district court lacked unlawfully jurisdiction referred to over him him; by his (ii) the birth district name court during the proceedings; (iii) the investigator who testified at his trial perjured himself; (iv) entered a at plea the authorized Spaulding s representative arraignment; and never (v) the Government slandered him when it gave information to a local newspaper that incorrectly stated the value of the property he stole. We have considered Spaulding s arguments and have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. United States v. Spaulding, No. 2:08-cr-00018-JBF-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2008). legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.