The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-4620•United States of America v. William Curtis Hope
10-4620Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 25, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4620
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM CURTIS HOPE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-nkm-1)
Submitted: November 12, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William Curtis Hope pled guilty to felony eluding, in
violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-817(B) (2010), as assimilated
by the Assimilative Crimes Act (“ACA”), 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2006).
He appeals, claiming that the assimilated state statute was a
traffic law already adopted by 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2010). Finding
no error, we affirm.
This court reviews de novo whether the ACA assimilates
a state offense. See United States v. Dotson, 615 F.3d 1162,
1165 (9th Cir. 2010). We conclude there was no error and the
Virginia statute was properly assimilated under the ACA.
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s judgment. See, e.g., United
States v. Fox, 60 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 1995). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.