UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4784
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABDUL HAMEED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00252-LMB-1)
Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abdul Hameed, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Gillis, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Abdul Hameed appeals from his convictions for
conspiracy, continuing financial criminal enterprise, mail
fraud, aggravated identity theft, and fraudulent use of credit
cards. Hameed proceeded pro se in the district court, and he is
pro se here on appeal. His informal brief contains numerous
nonsensical and meritless claims, most challenging the
jurisdiction of the district court. We find most of his claims
without legal basis and dismiss them as frivolous.
The one claim we will address in further detail is
Hameed’s assertion that he did not understand the charges
against him. On the day of his trial and after a psychiatric
examination found him to be competent, Hameed stipulated to all
the facts in his case as forecast by the Government and was,
thus, found guilty by the court. Hameed had previously
dismissed his attorneys in order to proceed pro se. He was
appointed stand-by counsel, but he refused to utilize that
resource. When the district court attempted to inform Hameed of
the rights he was waiving and ascertain whether he understood
his options, Hameed declined to respond appropriately and
instead repeated that he did not consent to the proceedings and
that the court was without jurisdiction. We find, therefore,
that, to the extent Hameed did not understand the charges
against him, he had only himself to blame. He spurned all help
2
and advice that was offered and continued to pursue frivolous
claims even after they had already been denied on more than one
occasion.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hameed’s
convictions. 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