UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4072
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAMSADEEN IBN PURVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(8:04-cr-00495-AW)
Submitted: June 30, 2006 Decided: July 21, 2006
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod
J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael R. Pauze, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shamsadeen Ibn Purvis appeals his convictions and
sentence to 264 months in prison and three years of supervised
release after pleading guilty to obstruction of interstate commerce
by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2000); using
and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2000); and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). We affirm.
Purvis contends the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over his prosecution because there was no verified
complaint and he is a sovereign who unwittingly relinquished his
freedom to the United States. This argument is without merit.
Subject matter jurisdiction over a federal prosecution is conferred
on the district court by 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2000). United States v.
Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 716 (4th Cir. 2006). Moreover, “there can
be no doubt that Article III permits Congress to assign federal
criminal prosecutions to federal courts.” Hugi v. United States,
164 F.3d 378, 380 (7th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we affirm Purvis’s convictions and sentence.
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
- 2 -