US v. Jeffrey Cohen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999508403-2]; granting Motion to expedite decision [999527607-2], granting Motion to expedite decision [999543590-2], granting Motion to expedite decision [999558912-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00310-WDQ-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999583131]. Mailed to: Appellant. [14-4913]

Appeal: 14-4913

Doc: 36

Filed: 05/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4913

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00310-WDQ-1)

Submitted:

April 14, 2015

Decided:

May 14, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro
Joyce Kallam McDonald, Assistant
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Se.
Harry Mason Gruber,
United States Attorneys,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4913

Doc: 36

Filed: 05/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey

Brian

Cohen

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying his motion to strike orders tolling the Speedy Trial Act
period, 18 U.S.C. § 3164 (2012), and for immediate release. 1

We

grant Cohen’s motions to expedite appellate review so far as is
consistent with the workload of the court.
9(a).

However,

we

reversible error. 2

have

(D.

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.
00310-WDQ-1

reviewed

See Fed. R. App. P.

Md.

Nov.

United States v. Cohen, No. 1:14-cr25,

2014).

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

1

The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
for
lack
of
jurisdiction.
We
conclude
that
we
have
jurisdiction; therefore, we deny the Government’s motion to
dismiss.
2

We deny Cohen’s motion to supplement his informal brief
because the proffered supplement concerns evidence not in the
record on appeal, and Cohen has not properly supplemented the
record. See 4th Cir. R. 10(d).

2