Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Samih Jammal, 15-1247 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-1247 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jun. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMIH FADL JAMMAL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-07925) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: June 9, 2015 Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sa
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMIH FADL JAMMAL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-07925) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: June 9, 2015 Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samih Fadl Jammal, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Dawgert, J. Max Weintraub, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; John Fulton Gianola, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samih Fadl Jammal appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and canceling Jammal’s certificate of naturalization. We have reviewed the record and Jammal’s arguments on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * United States v. Jammal, No. 3:12-cv- 07925 (S.D.W.Va. filed Feb. 9, 2015 & entered Feb. 10, 2015). We deny Jammal’s motion to strike the Government’s response brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Because we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the Government was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that Jammal committed unlawful acts that adversely reflected upon his moral character during the required statutory period, we need not reach the district court’s alternate ground that Jammal committed acts constituting a crime involving moral turpitude during the statutory period. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer