US v. Martin Jones, No. 13-1089 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTIN JONES, a/k/a Martin J. Del Rosareo, a/k/a Martin Jones Del Rosario, a/k/a Roberto Jones, a/k/a Martin King, a/k/a Martin J. Rosaro, a/k/a Martin Delrosareo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-01325-JFM) Submitted: June 10, 2013 Decided: July 5, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, J. Max Weintraub, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jessica A. Dawgert, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Martin granting the Jones appeals Government s the motion district for court s summary orders judgment and revoking his naturalization and certificate of naturalization. We affirm. We review a district court s order granting summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ. P. 56(a). outcome of Only disputes over facts that might affect the the suit under the governing preclude the entry of summary judgment. Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). for summary Fed. R. judgment, the law will properly Anderson v. Liberty To withstand a motion non-moving party must produce competent evidence to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Co., 312 speculative F.3d 645, See Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power 649 allegations do (4th not Cir. 2002) suffice, ( Conclusory nor does a or mere scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving party s] case. (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 We eligible note to be that it is naturalized undisputed because that he had Jones two was not controlled substance offenses which disqualified him from naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. ยงยง 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (2006). We conclude that Jones failed to show that there was an agreement whereby he would plead guilty and assist the Government in exchange for a promise that the Government would not seek to revoke the certificate of naturalization. only asserts that the Government agreed not take any Jones action against his immigration status, which at the time he allegedly entered the agreement was that of a lawful permanent resident. We also note that Jones did not request additional time to gather evidence that would support his claim that there was an agreement that would permit him to become naturalized without interference from the Government. We further note that Jones claim that the Government waited too long to seek to have his citizenship revoked is without merit. laches or neglect of duty on the part As a general rule of officers of the Government is no defense to a suit by it to enforce a public right or protect a public interest[.] INS v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, Jones did not show that he was prejudiced by the Government s decision to file the complaint twenty years after he took the oath of citizenship. See Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 282 3 (1961) (assuming the defense of laches could be asserted in the denaturalization process, the petitioner must show he was prejudiced by the delay). Accordingly, We dispense contentions with are oral we affirm argument adequately the district because presented in court s orders. the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
