UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4760
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MELVIN EUGENE GIBBS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge.
(CR-03-400-PJM)
Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 14, 2006
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Eugene Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Trusty, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Eugene Gibbs pled guilty to one count of mailing
threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 876 (West
Supp. 2005). Gibbs is an attorney and is proceeding pro se on
appeal. On appeal, Gibbs raises claims of whether it was proper
for the district court to recuse all District of Maryland judges
and appoint a Southern District of West Virginia judge; whether the
district court erred in ordering a competency hearing to determine
if Gibbs was competent to stand trial and serve as his own counsel;
whether the delay caused by the competency examination and hearing
resulted in a violation of the Speedy Trial Act; whether it was
error for the Government to use case files relating to Gibbs’ other
cases; whether Gibbs was forced to plead guilty by requiring a
competency hearing, denying him medical care in detention, and due
to unspecified risks to the lives of himself and his family based
on Gibbs’ prosecution of a civil case; whether the indictment
sufficiently charged specific intent to mail a threatening
communication; whether the prosecution for mailing a threatening
communication violated Gibbs’ First Amendment rights; whether the
district court erred in denying Gibbs bail; and whether ineffective
assistance of counsel caused Gibbs to plead guilty.
We have reviewed Gibbs’ brief on appeal, the appendix
submitted by Gibbs, the Government’s letter in reply to Gibbs’
brief, and the record, which included transcripts of the relevant
- 2 -
proceedings. After a careful review of the claims asserted by
Gibbs on appeal and the record before us, we affirm Gibbs’
judgment. We grant Gibbs’ motion to file a reply brief, but deny
all his pending motions for expedited treatment and to stay his
conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -