United States of America v. Elise Marie E. Hameed, a/k/a Elise Marie Evans Hameed, a/k/a Marie-Elise Evans,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5091
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ELISE MARIE E. HAMEED, a/k/a Elise Marie Evans Hameed,
a/k/a Marie-Elise Evans, a/k/a Marie Elise-Evans Hameed
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00510-CCB-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2012 Decided: July 6, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary E. Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Elise Marie E. Hameed was convicted after a bench
trial on stipulated facts of various counts of mail and wire
fraud. She was sentenced to twenty-four months in prison. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the voluntariness
of Hameed’s waiver of a jury trial but concluding that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Neither the Government nor
Hameed has filed a brief. We affirm.
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that “[i]f the defendant is entitled to a jury trial,
the trial must be by jury unless: (1) the defendant waives a
jury trial in writing; (2) the government consents; and (3) the
court approves.” The Sixth Amendment requires that the waiver
be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Patton v. United
States, 281 U.S. 276, 312-13 (1930), overruled on other grounds
by Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 92 (1970). While neither
Rule 23 nor the Constitution requires an explicit waiver
colloquy, we have noted that such an examination is the “better
practice.” United States v. Boynes, 515 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir.
2008).
Here, Hameed waived the right to a jury trial in
writing. The document was also signed by the Government and the
district court. In addition, the court conducted an extended

-- 2 of 3 --

3
colloquy, ensuring that Hameed understood the rights she was
waiving and that she and her counsel had had sufficient time to
discuss her options and arrive at a decision. Hameed presents
nothing to question the veracity of her statements in open
court. Accordingly, we conclude that the record shows that
Hameed’s waiver was knowing and voluntary.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. As such, we affirm Hameed’s convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Hameed in writing of her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Hameed requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may motion this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Hameed. 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

-- 3 of 3 --