United States v. Spaulding , 323 F. App'x 236 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4859
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FRANK E. SPAULDING, a/k/a Khalif Immanuel Bey,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:08-cr-00018-JBF-FBS-1)
Submitted: April 13, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank E. Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Kosky, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank E. Spaulding, also known as Khalif Immanuel Bey,
appeals his jury conviction and eighteen-month sentence for
theft of public property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641(2006), and making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001(a)(2) (2006). Spaulding, proceeding pro se, raises
several claims that he contends require that his conviction be
vacated, including that: (i) as an “Aboriginal, Indigenous and
Freehold Inhabitant and Moorish-American National,” the district
court lacked jurisdiction over him; (ii) the district court
unlawfully referred to him by his birth name during the
proceedings; (iii) the investigator who testified at his trial
perjured himself; (iv) the “authorized representative” never
entered a plea at Spaulding’s arraignment; and (v) the
Government slandered him when it gave information to a local
newspaper that incorrectly stated the value of the property he
stole.
We have considered Spaulding’s arguments and have
thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United
States v. Spaulding, No. 2:08-cr-00018-JBF-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. Aug.
27, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3