US v. Butler

Filing 920070913

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNIS TYRONE BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:86-cr-00255-CMH)

Submitted:

August 29, 2007

Decided:

September 13, 2007

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, John P. Lohrer Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Dennis Tyrone Butler pled guilty to the charge of escape in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and was sentenced to twenty-four months' imprisonment. On appeal, he

argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on his constitutional right to a speedy trial. For the following reasons, we affirm Butler's

conviction and sentence. In August 1978, Butler escaped from the lawful custody of the Attorney General after serving only eight years of a sentence of twenty years' to life imprisonment. Butler was indicted on the

charge of escape in September 1986, but was not arrested until he turned himself in to law enforcement officials in August 2006. Butler admits that from August 1978 until August 2006, he lived as a fugitive, moving frequently and using approximately thirty

different identities in an effort to evade capture and arrest. During that time period, the Government employed numerous

investigative techniques in an effort to locate and apprehend Butler. On balance, we find that the four factors outlined by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), weigh heavily against Butler. Accordingly, we find no violation of We therefore

Butler's constitutional right to a speedy trial. affirm Butler's conviction and sentence.

We dispense with oral

- 2 -

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 -