Legal Opinion

United States v. Melinsky

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided December 4, 2006No. 05-4948, 05-5040Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2Per curiam

Raymond J. and Suzanne L. Melinsky appeal their convictions for conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000); bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2000); and false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (2000). We affirm.

The Melinskys first argue that the Government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), because it faded to disclose that it lacked proof of Suzanne Melinsky’s prior criminal conviction. We agree with the district court that the Melinskys’ Brady claim lacks…

3Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. United States v. Frank Kahled Burgos, United States of America v. Alexio Burnard GobernCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
  4. United States v. Mija S. Romer, United States of America v. Khem C. BatraCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
  5. United States v. Glennis L. Bolden, United States of America v. Clifford E. BoldenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2003

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API