United States v. Gibbs

185 F. App'x 258

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 14, 2006
• Docket: 04-4760
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Eugene Gibbs pled guilty to one count of mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 876 (West Supp.2005). Gibbs is an attorney and is proceeding pro se on appeal. On appeal, Gibbs raises claims of whether it was proper for the district court to recuse all District of Maryland judges and appoint a Southern District of West Virginia judge; whether the district court erred in ordering a competency hearing to determine if Gibbs was competent to stand trial and serve as his own counsel; whether the delay caused by the competency examination and hearing resulted in a violation of the Speedy Trial Act; whether it was error for the Government to use case files relating to Gibbs’ other cases; whether Gibbs was forced to plead guilty by requiring a competency hearing, denying him medical care in detention, and due to unspecified risks to the lives of himself and his family based on Gibbs’ prosecution of a civil case; whether the indictment sufficiently charged specific intent to mail a threatening communication; whether the prosecution for mailing a threatening communication violated Gibbs’ First Amendment rights; whether the district court erred in denying Gibbs bail; and whether ineffective assistance of counsel caused Gibbs to plead guilty.

We have reviewed Gibbs’ brief on appeal, the appendix submitted by Gibbs, the Government’s letter in reply to Gibbs’ brief, and the record, which included transcripts of the relevant proceedings. After a careful review of the claims asserted by Gibbs on appeal and the record before us, we affirm Gibbs’ judgment. We grant Gibbs’ motion to file a reply brief, but deny all his pending motions for expedited treatment and to stay his conviction. 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.