Legal Opinion
United State v. Minger
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided September 21, 1992No. Nos. 92-5128, 92-5131 and 92-5185PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WIDENER, Circuit Judge:
This consolidated appeal requires us to determine whether the Oak Hill Youth Center (Oak Hill) is a “place of confinement” within the meaning of the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13,1 and the Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 139.2 *187Minger, Gray, Howard and Kibler were indicted under the ACA and § 139 for allegedly escaping from Oak Hill.3 They moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis that escape from Oak Hill does not constitute a crime under the ACA and § 139. The district court granted their motions, holding that Oak Hill did not constitute a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. Press Publishing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. Kenneth L. KilizCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Ruben F. SasnettCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991
- United States v. James Wayne Howard, A/K/A Mark Wayne HowardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
- United States v. John Herbert EadesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1997
- United States v. Rodney Minger Kevin Gray, Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, Amicus Curiae. United States of America v. Antoine Howard, Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, Amicus Curiae. United States of America v. Jerry Kibler, Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, Amicus CuriaeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992