United States v. Johnson , 270 F. App'x 191 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-24-2008
USA v. Johnson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-1336
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Johnson" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1396.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1396
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-164 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-1336
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TIMOTHY CARL JOHNSON,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cr-00419)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 20, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 24, 2008)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Timothy Carl Johnson appeals pro se from an order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his motion to dismiss filed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We will affirm.
Johnson pled guilty to a charge of bank robbery in the District Court, and he was
sentenced to a 151 month prison sentence in May 2007. Johnson filed an appeal in this
Court, but the appeal was dismissed at his request on October 23, 2007. See C.A. No. 07-
2633. Johnson then filed in the District Court a motion “to dismiss the indictment
returned against him for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B).” Criminal Rule 12 provides in pertinent part that “at any
time while the case is pending, the court may hear a claim that the indictment or
information fails to invoke the court’s jurisdiction or to state an offense.” Fed. R. Crim.
P. 12(b)(3)(B). In his motion, Johnson contended that his criminal judgment is void
because the criminal jurisdiction statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3231, was never enacted into
positive law and is unconstitutional.1
This argument is without merit. Section 3231 of title 18 provides: “The district
courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the
States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” Therefore, where an
indictment charges a defendant with violating the laws of the United States, section 3231
provides the district court with subject matter jurisdiction and empowers it to enter
judgment on the indictment. The 1948 amendment to that statute, Public Law 80-772,
passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Truman on June 25,
1
Johnson raises other issues, e.g., claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel
and prosecutorial misconduct, but all his claims rely on the underlying premise that
section 3231 was void ab initio.
2
1948. See United States v. Risquet, 426 F. Supp. 2d 310, 311 (E.D. Pa. 2006). The
statute relied upon for jurisdiction in this case was properly enacted and is binding.
Section 3231 provides the district court with subject matter jurisdiction over robbery
charges such as Johnson’s. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 500 F.3d 210, 213 (3d Cir.
2007).
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court denying Johnson’s Rule
12(b)(3)(B) motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.
3