TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Burke

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Steve BURKE, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Burke, 113 F.3d 211 (11th Cir. 1997)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 29, 1997
Docket
No. 96-6354
Judges
Black, Roney, Burns
Citations
113 F.3d 21110 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 9531997 U.S. App. LEXIS 12340

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Military police arrested Michael Steve Burke for driving while intoxicated in the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, a place within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States. Because there is no federal law prohibiting such conduct, he was charged under the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13 , with violating Maryland Code Annotated [Transportation] § 21-902(a) (1995) (“Driving While Intoxicated”).

Three years later, Burke pled guilty to the offense in the Middle District of Alabama. The magistrate judge sentenced him to one year in prison followed by a one-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Burke argues that the ACA limits the total number of days of his imprisonment plus supervised release to the one-year maximum term of incarceration allowed under Maryland Code Annotated [Transportation] § 27-101(k). Under the de novo standard of review, see United States v. Rojas, 47 F.3d 1078, 1080 (11th Cir.1995), we affirm.

In United States v. Pierce, 75 F.3d 173, 178 (4th Cir.1996), the Fourth Circuit rejected a defendant’s argument that the ACA limits the total number of days of imprisonment plus supervised release to the maximum number of days of incarceration allowed under the assimilated state law. We find the Fourth Circuit’s opinion persuasive and adopt its reasoning.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1997: 11998: 22003: 12009: 12010: 22025: 119972026peak 1998 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. English589 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 2009)
  2. United States v. Gaskell134 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 1998)
  3. UNITED STATES of America v. Lisa RAPAL146 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1998)
  4. United States v. Dwaine Julius Engelhorn122 F.3d 508 (8th Cir. 1997)
  5. United States v. Edward L. Pate321 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 2003)
  6. United States v. Flores130 F.4th 465 (5th Cir. 2025)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Flores130 F.4th 465 (5th Cir. 2025)
  2. United States v. Peeble375 F. App'x 288 (4th Cir. 2010)
  3. United States v. Peebles375 F. App'x 288 (4th Cir. 2010) · Dissent
  4. United States v. English589 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 2009)
  5. United States v. Edward L. Pate321 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 2003)
  6. UNITED STATES of America v. Lisa RAPAL146 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Pierce, 75 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1996) 36
United States v. Rojas, 47 F.3d 1078 (11th Cir. 1995) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list