US v. Butler

Filing 920070913


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4121 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNIS TYRONE BUTLER, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?