UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DENNIS TYRONE BUTLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:86-cr-00255-CMH)
Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, John P. Lohrer
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Tyrone Butler pled guilty to the charge of escape
in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and
was sentenced to twenty-four months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he
argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss the indictment based on his constitutional right to a
speedy trial. For the following reasons, we affirm Butler’s
conviction and sentence.
In August 1978, Butler escaped from the lawful custody of
the Attorney General after serving only eight years of a sentence
of twenty years’ to life imprisonment. Butler was indicted on the
charge of escape in September 1986, but was not arrested until he
turned himself in to law enforcement officials in August 2006.
Butler admits that from August 1978 until August 2006, he lived as
a fugitive, moving frequently and using approximately thirty
different identities in an effort to evade capture and arrest.
During that time period, the Government employed numerous
investigative techniques in an effort to locate and apprehend
Butler.
On balance, we find that the four factors outlined by the
Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), weigh
heavily against Butler. Accordingly, we find no violation of
Butler’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. We therefore
affirm Butler’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral
- 2 -
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 -