Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-12-06846/USCOURTS-ca4-12-06846-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enoc Alcantara-Mendez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6846

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Petitioner – Appellee,

v.

ENOC ALCANTARA-MENDEZ,

 Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02178-BR)

Submitted: December 14, 2012 Decided: January 4, 2013

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jennifer Haynes Rose, LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER HAYNES ROSE, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, 

United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, David T. Huband, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6846 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/04/2013 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

After a hearing, the district court ordered that Enoc 

Alcantara-Mendez be committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Counsel for 

Alcantara-Mendez filed a timely notice of appeal of the district 

court’s order. Prior to that notice of appeal, however, 

Alcantara-Mendez filed a separate pro se notice of appeal. As 

Alcantara-Mendez in that appeal challenged both the district 

court’s order denying reconsideration and the order committing 

him to the custody of the Attorney General, this court 

previously considered Alcantara-Mendez’s arguments regarding 

both of those orders. We, therefore, have already affirmed the 

district court’s order committing Alcantara-Mendez to the 

custody of the Attorney General. See United States v. 

Alcantara-Mendez, 20120 WL 5193410 (4th Cir. Oct. 22, 2012) 

(unpublished). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as 

duplicative.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

 * We note that counsel for Alcantara-Mendez raises 

additional arguments to those raised in the prior appeal. Even 

if we considered these additional arguments to be properly 

before us we conclude that these arguments lack merit.

Appeal: 12-6846 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/04/2013 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 12-6846 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/04/2013 Pg: 3 of 3