UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4280
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TARIQ BELT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00549-WDQ)
Submitted: October 27, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard L. Cardin, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher
J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tariq Belt appeals his conviction and sentence to one
year in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading
guilty to possession of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)
(2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 3147 (2000). We affirm.
Belt contends the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over his prosecution because there was no verified
complaint, the district court is not a “common law court,”
prosecutions may not be brought in the name of the government, and
he is a sovereign who unwittingly relinquished his freedom to the
United States. These claims are utterly devoid of 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).
Belt also contends that the district court lacked
jurisdiction because he was operating as a “government agent” at
the time of the offense. During Belt’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing
before the district court, Belt agreed with the Government’s
account of the underlying events, admitting that he was guilty of
the crime of possession of cocaine. Belt was arrested following a
controlled drug sale with a government informant, and there is no
- 2 -
evidence that Belt was operating as a “government agent” during the
narcotics transaction that gave rise to the charge. This claim
lacks a factual or legal basis.
Accordingly, we affirm Belt’s conviction 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
- 3 -