Reginald Young v. Troy Levi, Warden, F.d.c. - Phila.

BLD-110 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4452
___________
REGINALD YOUNG,
Appellant
v.
TROY LEVI, WARDEN, F.D.C. - PHILA.;
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL (ACTING); JOHN
CLARK, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARSHAL'S SERVICE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-04257)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P.
10.6
January 25, 2008
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: December 17, 2008
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Reginald Young appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition as
frivolous. In August 2005, Young was indicted and charged with three counts of drug

-- 1 of 2 --

In denying Young’s motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, the District1
Court noted that the drugs involved in Young’s criminal case were not destroyed as had
been originally thought. Moreover, the District Court noted that Young’s defense was
that he was not involved in the drug transaction - not that the transfer of those drugs never
occurred.
2
trafficking. In June 2006, after a three-day jury trial, Young was convicted on all counts.
He has not yet been sentenced. On October 11, 2007, Young filed a petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that his arrest, detention, and indictment were unlawful, and
he was being held in violation of Due Process. He argues that he was misled by his
attorney into stipulating that some evidence that had been destroyed was four kilograms
of narcotics. He also contends that the grand jury indictment was procedurally defective,1
and that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence. The District Court dismissed the
petition as frivolous. Young filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary action is appropriate if
there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. The
District Court is not required to act on Young’s pro se filings while he is represented by
counsel. United States v. Essig, 10 F.3d 968, 973 (3d Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we will
summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. Young’s
motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice is denied.

-- 2 of 2 --