United States of America v. Eugene E. Chatman

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1581
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
EUGENE E. CHATMAN
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 2-09-mj-00045-001)
District Judge: The Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 30, 2009
BEFORE: SMITH, FISHER, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 5, 2009 )
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Eugene Chatman was convicted of trespass on Veterans Administration
property, a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503 and the Assimilative Crimes Act. The District
Court imposed no fines or costs, but did restrict Appellant’s presence on Veterans
Administration grounds. The District Court’s restrictions permitted Chatman to enter
Veterans Administration property solely for medical purposes and required him to have a
police escort while on the grounds of Veterans Administration facilities. Chatman filed a
motion to dismiss these restrictions alleging violations of his rights as a patient of the
Veterans Administration and violations of his civil rights in general. The District Court
refused to lift its restrictions and Chatman has filed an appeal, pro se. We will affirm.
Liberally construing his pro se brief, Chatman first argues that the restrictions
imposed by the District Court constitute harassment and a denial of medical treatment.
This argument is unsupported by the record. Furthermore, the District Court’s restrictions
do not prevent Chatman from receiving medical treatment in any manner. This argument
has no merit. Chatman also argues that the District Court’s restrictions violate his privacy
rights under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the
United Nations in 1948. This argument lacks merit because the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights is a non-binding declaration that provides no private rights of action.
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004) (explaining that Universal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Declaration is simply a statement of principles and not a treaty or international agreement
that would impose legal obligations.).
Next, Chatman quotes the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but makes no
supporting argument to overcome his conviction and/or sentence. Although pro se briefs
are afforded liberal construction, arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Put another way, Chatman’s failure to
identify an error is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment. See e.g. Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Finally, Chatman
makes a request for “punitive damages” because of alleged false imprisonment by the
Veterans Administration authorities. We agree with the Government that this request for
civil relief exceeds the bounds of a criminal appeal. We further find this request meritless
and frivolous.
We will affirm the order of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --