SCOTT J. MYERSON, APPELLANT,
UNITED STATES, APPELLEE
Submitted February 20, 2014
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (CMD-5142-12). (Hon. Juliet J. McKenna, Trial Judge).
Jeffrey L. Light was on the brief for appellant.
Ronald C. Machen Jr., United States Attorney, Elizabeth Trosman, Suzanne Grealy Curt, Damien Diggs, and Peter S. Smith, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.
Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judge, and PRYOR and KING, Senior Judges.
Blackburne-Rigsby, Associate Judge.
Appellant Scott Myerson was convicted of misdemeanor assault on a police officer
(" APO" ). On appeal, appellant argues that the criminal information should have been dismissed because: (1) the APO statute, as applied to him, exceeds the Council of the District of Columbia's (" Council" ) authority under the Home Rule Act;  and (2) the government's failure to timely present a witness at trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights. We affirm.
I. Factual Background
On March 25, 2012, at approximately 3:00 p.m., United States Park Police Officers Michael Blake and Carl Hiott were effectuating the arrest of a pedicab driver for refusing to move his pedicab from a handicapped parking space, located on the 1000 block of Madison Drive, Northwest, next to the National Capitol Mall, when appellant rode his own pedicab to the scene, grabbed the other pedicab by the handlebar, and began towing it away. The officers ordered appellant to release the other driver's pedicab and leave the scene. Appellant released the pedicab but confronted the officers and " began arguing" with Officer Blake. Officer Blake instructed appellant to " move along and leave the area" several times, but each time appellant parked his pedicab in a no parking zone on Madison Drive.
Officer Blake informed him that he was being issued a " notice of infraction," which caused appellant to become " very agitated" and " scream at the top of his lungs." Appellant also " pulled out his cell phone and held it in front of [Officer Blake's] face." Officer Blake ordered appellant " to put his phone away[,]" but appellant refused to comply. As a result, Officer Blake told appellant that he was under arrest for ...