Case ID: f-appx_16/html/0139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Oscar HAYES, a/k/a Duke, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4783.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 10, 2001.
    Decided July 27, 2001.
    Gary B. Zimmerman, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Donald Oscar Hayes appeals the district court order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because it violated his protection against double jeopardy. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Green, 139 F.3d 1002, 1004 (4th Cir.1998). We find that the district court did not err by finding that there were two separate agreements to distribute marijuana in Pennsylvania. See United States v. Ragins, 840 F.2d 1184, 1190 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. MacDougall, 790 F.2d 1135, 1144-46 (4th Cir.1986). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.