2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-17-2008 

# Y oung v . Levi P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4452

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Y oun g v . L evi " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 85. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/85B L D - 110 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4452

___________ RE GI NAL D YOUN G, A ppel l ant v. T R O Y L E V I, W A R D E N , F .D .C . - P H IL A .; U. S . AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L ( AC T I NG) ; J OHN CLARK, DI REC TOR, U. S . M ARS HAL' S S ERVI CE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 04257) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d f

orPos s i bl e Summar yA c t i on Pur s ua ntt o Thi r d Ci r c ui tLA R 27. 4 a nd I . O . P. 1 0 .6 J anuary25, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber17, 2008

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R egi nal d Y oung appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s § 2241 pet i t i on as fr i vol ous . I n A ugus t2005, Y oung w as i ndi ct ed and c har ged w i t h t hr ee c ount s of drugI n deny i ng Y oung’ s m ot i ons forj udgm entof ac qui t t al and fora new t r i al , t he D i s t r i ct 1 C our tnot ed thatt he drugs i nvol ved i n Y oung’ s cr i m i nal cas e w er e notdes t r oy ed as had been or i gi nal l yt hought . M or eover , t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatY oung’ s defe ns e w as t hathe w as noti nvol ved i n t he drug t r ans act i on - nott hatt he tr ans ferof thos e drugs never occurr ed. 2 tr a f f ic k in g . In J u n e 2 0 0 6 , a f te r a th re e -d a yju ry tria l, Y o u n g w a s c o n v ic te d o n a ll c o u n ts . H e h a s n o t y e t b e e n se n ten c e d . O n O c to b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , Y o u n g f iled a p e tit io n p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2241. H e ar gued thathi s arr es t , det ent i on, and i ndi ctm entw er e unl aw ful , and h e w a s b e in g h e ld in v io latio n o f D u e P ro c e ss . H e a rg u e s th a t h e w a s m isle d b yh is a t t o r n e yi n t o s t i p u l a t i n g t h a ts o me e v i d e n c e t h a th a d b e e n d e s t r o y e d wa s f o u rk i l o g r a ms of nar cot i cs . H e al s o cont ends t hatt he gr and j ur yi ndi ctm entw as pr ocedur al l ydefe ct i ve,

1 and thatt he pr os ecut i on w i t hhel d excul pat or yevi dence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the p e tit io n a s f

riv o lo u s. Y o u n g f

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . S u m m a rya c tio n is a p p ro p ria te if t her e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t he appe al . See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s notr equi r ed t o acton Y oung’ s pr o s e fi l i ngs w hi l e he i s r epr es ent ed by c o u n se l. U n ited S tate s v . E ss ig , 1 0 F .3 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill su m m aril yaf

firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. Se e T h ir d C ir cu itI. O . P . 1 0 . 6 . Y o u n g ’s m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he appe al w i t houtpr ej udi ce i s deni ed.