United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Marshall Hollingsworth, Defendant-appellant, 16 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 16 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 1994)

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994. Decided Feb. 8, 1994


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-93-26)

Joseph J. McCarthy, Dawkins, Delaney, McCarthy, Powell & Colton, P.C., Alexandria, VA, for appellant.

Kenneth E. Melson, U.S. Atty., Andrew G. McBride, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


Marshall Hollingsworth appeals from his conviction for assaulting a Lorton Reformatory correctional officer in violation of D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 22-505 (1981) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Hollingsworth asserts that the district court did not have jurisdiction over his conviction because the code provision at issue did not "arise under" the Constitution or the laws of the United States as required by Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. Hollingsworth alleges that case law supporting the district court's ability to hear such claims dealt only with venue, not jurisdiction. However, we have clearly stated that, " [t]he Eastern District of Virginia has jurisdiction under the clear language of Sec. 22-505 of the D.C.Code and under Article III of the Constitution...." United States v. Young, 916 F.2d 147, 150 (4th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Perez, 488 F.2d 1057, 1059 (4th Cir. 1974). Therefore, Hollingsworth's claim is without merit and we affirm his conviction. 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