CLD-012 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-2874
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GARY RAMSEY, a/k/a “ROCK”
GARY RAMSEY,
Appellant
____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00005-004)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 15, 2010
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 26, 2010)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Gary Ramsey, a federal prisoner presently confined in USP Hazelton, appeals pro
se from the District Court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. Because
we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm.
See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
A jury for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania convicted Ramsey of numerous
crimes arising out of two armed bank robberies. The court sentenced to him to 900
months of imprisonment in October 2002. This Court affirmed in October 2003. See
United States v. Ramsey, 80 F. App’x 168 (3d Cir. 2003). The District Court denied his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in February 2006, and we denied a certificate of appealability.
See C.A. 06-1671.
In June 2010, Ramsey filed a motion to dismiss certain counts in the indictment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B). He claimed that the
indictment was deficient because it did not allege that he robbed a “national bank” within
the meaning of the bank robbery statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113. The District Court
denied the motion as frivolous, noting that Rule 12(b)(3)(B) relates to motions raised
before trial or while the case is pending. Ramsey filed a timely notice of appeal.
Motions alleging a defect in an indictment must be made before trial. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 12(b)(3). However, “at any time while the case is pending, the court may hear a
claim that the indictment or information fails to invoke the court’s jurisdiction or to state
an offense.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B). Ramsey argues that the District Court
incorrectly denied his motion, since he challenged the indictment on the ground that it
failed to state an offense. However, the District Court properly denied the motion
2
outright, given that his case is no longer “pending.” Furthermore, this Court previously
rejected a similar claim in denying his motion for certificate of appealability in 2006. See
C.A. 06-1671.
Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the District Court’s order denying the motion. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir.
I.O.P. 10.6.
3