953 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1992), 91-10206, U.S. v. Blevins
|Citation:||953 F.2d 1388|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerald W. BLEVINS, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||January 27, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. CR-90-00307-EJG; Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding.
Before CHOY, SCHROEDER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Jerald Blevins appeals his conviction for speeding, affirmed by the district court following a trial before a United States Magistrate. Blevins received a $50 speeding ticket for traveling 86 miles per hour on a county road that leads into Beale Air Force Base.
Although the United States objects to our jurisdiction on the ground that the appeal from the Magistrate Judge to the district court was not timely, the district court heard Blevins' appeal and ruled on the merits. The district court implicitly found that there was excusable neglect for the delay, and we, like the district court, consider the merits of the appeal.
Blevins contends he was denied due process because the ticket failed to state that he would be prosecuted under federal law (the Assimilated Crimes Act) which incorporated California traffic laws. The ticket did state that he was charged with violating California Vehicle Code Section 22350--speeding. This apprised him of all the essential elements of the crime. The failure to specify that the crime arose under the Federal Assimilated Crimes Act in no way prejudiced his ability to defend, and such prejudice would be required for reversal on this ground. See United States v. Fekri, 650 F.2d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir.1981).
Blevins also contends there was insufficient evidence to show that he was speeding on the military base as opposed to on a county road off the base. As the district court ruled, the Magistrate-Judge's findings were fully supported by the military police officer's testimony and the radar evidence.
Appellant's principal contention is that he did not know that he was on a military base at the time he was found to be...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP