US v. Enoc Alcantara-Mendez, No. 12-6846 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6846 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner Appellee, v. ENOC ALCANTARA-MENDEZ, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:11-hc-02178-BR) Submitted: December 14, 2012 Decided: January 4, 2013 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer Haynes Rose, LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER HAYNES ROSE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, David T. Huband, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: After a hearing, the district court ordered that Enoc Alcantara-Mendez be committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Counsel for Alcantara-Mendez filed a timely notice of appeal of the district court s order. Prior to that notice of appeal, however, Alcantara-Mendez filed a separate pro se notice of appeal. Alcantara-Mendez in that appeal challenged both the As district court s order denying reconsideration and the order committing him to the previously custody considered both of those orders. district custody court s of the Attorney General, Alcantara-Mendez s this arguments court regarding We, therefore, have already affirmed the order committing Attorney General. Alcantara-Mendez, 20120 5193410 (unpublished). Accordingly, duplicative. * the of WL we Alcantara-Mendez See (4th United Cir. dismiss Oct. this to the States 22, v. 2012) appeal as We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials * We note that counsel for Alcantara-Mendez raises additional arguments to those raised in the prior appeal. Even if we considered these additional arguments to be properly before us we conclude that these arguments lack merit. 2 before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.