Legal Opinion
Fatumabahirtu v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 11, 2011No. 08-CM-314, 08-CM-781PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REID, Associate Judge, Retired:
These appeals involve a matter of first impression requiring an interpretation of a subsection of the District of Columbia Drug Paraphernalia Act of 1982 (“DPA”), D.C.Code § 48-1103(b) (2001). 3 After the government gave notice of its intent to proceed on the lesser-included charge of “[a]ttempted [possession of [d]rug [paraphernalia with [ijntent to [s]ell” instead of the charged offense, the trial court found appellants, Surur Fatumabahirtu and Shahzad Aslam, guilty of attempted sale of drug paraphernalia. Ms. Fatumabahir-tu contends that the DPA contains both…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- Harrison v. Northern Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Grayson v. AT & T CORP.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- United States v. Elton NanceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. ZON. COM'N, ETC.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- DEANDRE BROOKS v. UNITED STATESDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- Ramirez v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
- SURUR FATUMABAHIRTU v. UNITED STATESDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016