US v. Abdul Hameed

Filing 920090428

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4784 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ABDUL HAMEED, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00252-LMB-1) Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdul Hameed, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Gillis, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Abdul conspiracy, Hameed appeals financial from his convictions enterprise, for mail continuing criminal fraud, aggravated identity theft, and fraudulent use of credit cards. Hameed proceeded pro se in the district court, and he is His informal brief contains numerous claims, most challenging the pro se here on appeal. nonsensical and meritless jurisdiction of the district court. We find most of his claims without legal basis and dismiss them as frivolous. The one claim we will address in further detail is Hameed's assertion that he did not understand the charges against him. On the day of his trial and after a psychiatric examination found him to be competent, Hameed stipulated to all the facts in his case as forecast by the Government and was, thus, found guilty by the court. Hameed had previously He was that dismissed his attorneys in order to proceed pro se. appointed resource. stand-by counsel, but he refused to utilize When the district court attempted to inform Hameed of the rights he was waiving and ascertain whether he understood his options, Hameed declined to respond appropriately and instead repeated that he did not consent to the proceedings and that the court was without jurisdiction. that, to the extent Hameed did not We find, therefore, the charges understand against him, he had only himself to blame. 2 He spurned all help and advice that was offered and continued to pursue frivolous claims even after they had already been denied on more than one occasion. For convictions. the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hameed's 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

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?