Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0089-01.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 v. Eric CRAFT, Appellant.
    No. 12-1098.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 1, 2012.
    Opinion filed: March 26, 2012.
    William A. Behe, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, Theodore B. Smith, III, Esq., Executive Office of the United States Attorney, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
    Eric Craft, Bradford, PA, pro se.
    
      Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Eric Craft appeals the District Court’s order denying his motions to dismiss the superseding information. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.

In September 2002, Craft pleaded guilty in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to a superseding information charging him with causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). Craft was sentenced to 480 months in prison. We affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. See United States v. Craft, 189 Fed.Appx. 372 (3d Cir.2005). In December 2006, the District Court denied Craft’s timely motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We subsequently denied Craft’s request for a certificate of appealability.

Since then, Craft has filed several unsuccessful motions challenging the District Court’s jurisdiction over his criminal case. In September 2011, Craft filed two more motions challenging the District Court’s jurisdiction in his criminal case. The District Court denied the motions, and Craft filed a notice of appeal.

Craft argued in his motions that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case because the information failed to plead a substantial effect on interstate commerce. He also argued that the District Court failed to prove that the killing was connected to a drug-trafficking offense. The District Court was correct that Craft cannot challenge his criminal information by using Fed. R.Crim. P 12(b)(3)(B) because his case is no longer “pending.” Moreover, given Craft’s guilty plea, the government was not required to prove that the murder was connected to a drug-trafficking offense.

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. We warn Craft that continuing to file frivolous motions may result in sanctions and filing restrictions.