Court Opinion

ID: 996959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:58:06.917668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:04.299201
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-6310

ANTHONY D. HAWKS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CR-94-206-S, CA-97-61-S)

Submitted: May 19, 1998

Decided: November 16, 1998

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Anthony D. Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Anthony D. Hawks appeals from the district court's order denying
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. Finding
no reversible error, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss.

Hawks contends on appeal that the district court improperly denied
his motion to amend his § 2255 motion. We disagree. Our review of
the record discloses that although the court denied this motion, it
treated it as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
As such, the court reviewed all claims contained therein and properly
found none to survive summary dismissal under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing § 2255 Proceedings. We agree with the district court's
conclusion.

Hawks also asserts that his federal trial, following an alleged
acquittal of the charges in state court, violated the Double Jeopardy
Clause. Hawks did not raise this argument below and therefore may
not assert it for the first time on appeal absent plain error or a funda-
mental miscarriage of justice. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246,
250 (4th Cir. 1993). Because successive charges of this type are per-
mitted under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Hawks fails to demon-
strate either of these prerequisites. See Abbate v. United States, 359
U.S. 187 (1959). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss this appeal. We also deny Hawks' motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and his motion to amend and supplement his plead-
ings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                     2