United States v. Hardy

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Hardy

32 F. App'x 107

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 2002

Docket01-4930

StatusUnpublished

This text of 32 F. App'x 107 (United States v. Hardy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Hardy, 32 F. App'x 107 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Milton Hardy appeals the district court’s order affirming Hardy’s conviction for stalking, a Class A misdemeanor, 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West 2000) (incorporating Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3 (Michie 1996)). See Fed.R.Crim.P. 58(g). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s judgment and find no reversible error. We find the Government’s evidence proves Hardy, on more than one occasion, engaged in conduct directed at Ida McBride with the intent to place McBride in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury, or with the knowledge that his actions would cause McBride fear. See Bowen v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 377, 499 S.E.2d 20, 22 (1998). We further find federal jurisdiction existed because several instances of Hardy’s conduct occurred on federal property. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (incorporating Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Milton Hardy appeals the district court’s order affirming Hardy’s conviction for stalking, a Class A misdemeanor, 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West 2000) (incorporating Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3 (Michie 1996)). See Fed.R.Crim.P. 58(g). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s judgment and find no reversible error. We find the Government’s evidence proves Hardy, on more than one occasion, engaged in conduct directed at Ida McBride with the intent to place McBride in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury, or with the knowledge that his actions would cause McBride fear. See Bowen v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 377, 499 S.E.2d 20, 22 (1998). We further find federal jurisdiction existed because several instances of Hardy’s conduct occurred on federal property. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (incorporating Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. App'x 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hardy-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack