UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LUIS FELIPE GOMEZ,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
04-386-PJM)
Argued: May 25, 2006 Decided: August 25, 2006
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, GREGORY, Circuit Judge, and Joseph F.
ANDERSON, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the District
of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge
Gregory wrote a dissenting opinion.
ARGUED: David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Dale Preston Kelberman, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Allen F. Loucks, United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Chan Park, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Paul F. Kemp, Eric C. Willis, VENABLE,
L.L.P., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
The United States appeals an order of the district court
dismissing the indictment against Luis Felipe Gomez. Gomez was
charged with conducting an unlicensed money transmitting business.
See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1960 (West Supp. 2006). The district court
dismissed the indictment on the basis of its opinion in United
States v. Talebnejad, 342 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Md. 2004). We agree
with the district court that this case is in pari materia with
Talebnejad. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our opinion
reversing the district court, see United States v. Talebnejad, 2006
WL 2390645 (4th Cir. August 21, 2006), we reverse the dismissal of
the indictment against Gomez and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
2
GREGORY, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
For reasons enunciated in my separate opinion in United States
v. Talebnejad, No. 04-4841(L), 2006 WL 2390645 (4th Cir. Aug. 21,
2006), I respectfully dissent. Here, as in Talebnejad, the
indictment failed to allege a knowing and willful violation of the
Maryland licensing law for activities after October 1, 2002.
Because I would hold that the Government must prove a knowing and
willful violation of Maryland’s licensing law for conduct occurring
after October 1, 2002, I would affirm the dismissal of the
indictment.
3