Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207313/United-States-v-Ronald-Atkins-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:55:38+00:00

Document:
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P.
follow, we reject these arguments and affirm.
motion to dismiss an indictment based purely on legal grounds.
United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222, 224 (4th Cir. 2009).
also review the district courts venue determination de novo.
United States v. Wilson, 262 F.3d 305, 320 (4th Cir. 2001).
U.S. Const. art. III, 2, cl. 3; Fed. R.
Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215, 220 (1956).
Carr v. United States, __ U.S. __, 130 S.
between North Carolina and Maryland.
was begun, continued, or completed.
1202, 1212 (11th Cir. 2009).
intelligible principle guiding the exercise of that authority.
U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Aug. 30, 2012) (No. 12-6067); United States v.
(argued but unpublished), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __ (U.S. Oct.
349, 351-52 (4th Cir.) (Nos. 11-4420/4471) (per curiam), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 2446 (2012); United States v. Burns, 418 F.
issue have dismissed this claim.
(2010); United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 264 (5th Cir.
2009); Ambert, 561 F.3d at 1213-14.
Facto Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the APA.
hold that Atkinss challenges on these grounds must fail.
Capital Security Systems v. NCR Et. Al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.