US v. Samih Jammal

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999578396-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cv-07925 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999598571]. Mailed to: Samih Fadl Jammal. [15-1247]

Appeal: 15-1247

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/09/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMIH FADL JAMMAL,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-07925)

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Before KEENAN and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 9, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samih Fadl
Weintraub,
D.C.; John
Charleston,

Jammal, Appellant Pro Se.
Jessica Dawgert, J. Max
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
Fulton Gianola, Assistant United States Attorney,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1247

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/09/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Samih
granting

Fadl

canceling

the

Jammal

appeals

Government’s

Jammal’s

the

motion

certificate

district

for

of

summary

court’s
judgment

naturalization.

We

order
and
have

reviewed the record and Jammal’s arguments on appeal and find no
reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. *

United States v. Jammal, No. 3:12-cv-

07925 (S.D.W.Va. filed Feb. 9, 2015 & entered Feb. 10, 2015).
We

deny

brief.
legal
before

Jammal’s

motion

to

strike

the

Government’s

response

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

*

Because we conclude that the district court correctly
determined that the Government was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on the ground that Jammal committed unlawful acts
that adversely reflected upon his moral character during the
required statutory period, we need not reach the district
court’s alternate ground that Jammal committed acts constituting
a crime involving moral turpitude during the statutory period.

2