Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Mullican

August 3, 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STEPHEN MULLICAN, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: (varlan/guyton)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This criminal action is before the Court on defendant Stephen Mullican's ("Defendant's") Pro Se Motion for Dismissal due to Lack of Jurisdiction. [Doc. 26.] Defendant contends that the Court lacked subject matter in the instant case, and thus Defendant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a),(e) must be overturned. The government has not responded to Defendant's motion and the time for doing so has passed. See L.R. 7.1(a), 7.2. Accordingly, the instant motion is now ripe for adjudication.

Defendant contends that Title 18 of the United States Code was never properly adopted into law, arguing that Public Law 80-722, which created Title 18, was not passed in both houses before Congress adjourned, and thus the Public Law was never properly adopted, meaning Title 18 was never enacted into law.

The Court notes that other courts have previously addressed similar arguments, and the Court draws guidance from the case of United States v. Martinez, CR No. C-04-157, 2006 WL 1293261 (S.D. Tex. May 6, 2006). The Martinez court found that Public Law 80-772 was passed by the House of Representatives in the first session of 80th Congress. Id. at *5. Public law 80-772 was then passed by the Senate during the second session of that same Congress. Id. The recess between the two sessions was an inter-session recess, not a sine die recess. Id. Bills passed by one house before an inter-session recess and by the other house after the recess are properly passed by Congress. Id. Thus, the Court finds that Public Law 80-772 was properly enacted into law and Defendant's motion [Doc. 26] is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thomas A. Varlan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20070803

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.