U.S. v. Dury, 1:08-cr-00016-MR. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160516975
Visitors: 28
Filed: May 13, 2016
Latest Update: May 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to the War Powers Act March 5, 1933 in this Article III Section II Clause I Admiralty Court as Defendant is Not a War Criminal" [Doc. 66]. In his Motion, the Defendant argues that his conviction is not valid because the United States has been "in marshal [sic] law/admiralty law since March 5, 1933," and the Defendant was not charged with a war crime. [Doc. 6
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to the War Powers Act March 5, 1933 in this Article III Section II Clause I Admiralty Court as Defendant is Not a War Criminal" [Doc. 66]. In his Motion, the Defendant argues that his conviction is not valid because the United States has been "in marshal [sic] law/admiralty law since March 5, 1933," and the Defendant was not charged with a war crime. [Doc. 66..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to the War Powers Act March 5, 1933 in this Article III Section II Clause I Admiralty Court as Defendant is Not a War Criminal" [Doc. 66].
In his Motion, the Defendant argues that his conviction is not valid because the United States has been "in marshal [sic] law/admiralty law since March 5, 1933," and the Defendant was not charged with a war crime. [Doc. 66 at 1]. The Defendant's argument is patently frivolous, and therefore his motion will be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to the War Powers Act March 5, 1933 in this Article III Section II Clause I Admiralty Court as Defendant is Not a War Criminal" [Doc. 66] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
