Case ID: f-appx_300/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Posr Amojo POSR, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 07-0970-cr (L), 07-0972-cr (Con), 07-2145-cr (Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 12, 2008.
    UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgments of the District Court are AFFIRMED:
    
      Christopher Lloyd LaVigne, Assistant United States Attorney (Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY., for Appellee.
    Posr A. Posr, New York, N.Y., pro se.
    PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Hon. B.D. PARKER and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Posr A. Posr appeals from (1) the October 23, 2006, 2006 WL 3025957, order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, J.), revoking Posr’s bond and remanding him to the custody of the United States Marshal Service; (2) the October 24, 2006 order convicting Posr of criminal contempt and sentencing him to a term of 21 days’ imprisonment; and (3) the May 14, 2007 judgment of conviction sentencing Posr to 344 days’ imprisonment for misdemeanor assault of a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We have reviewed all of Posr’s contentions on appeal, including the following: (1) the Federal Magistrates Act is unconstitutional; (2) Magistrate Judge Frank Maas lacked the authority to vacate Posr’s sentence; (3) District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan lacked jurisdiction to preside over Posr’s trial; (4) Posr’s conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause; (5) the District Court erroneously instructed the jury as to the “employed to assist” language in 18 U.S.C. § 1114; (6) the complaint and information were insufficient; and (7) the District Court made erroneous evidentiary rulings. We find that none of Posr’s contentions has merit. Therefore, we affirm the judgment and each of the orders of the District Court.

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.