US v. Evans

Filing 920060912


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4480 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERBERT G. EVANS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:02-cv-000136-JPJ; 1:04-mj-00014-JPJ) Submitted: August 30, 2006 Decided: September 12, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and Henry F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monroe Jamison, Jr., Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Randy Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herbert G. Evans, Jr., appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion to involuntary medicate Evans. We remanded this case to the district court for the purpose of reevaluating two of the factors announced in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) necessary for administering involuntary See On medication to render a defendant competent to stand trial. United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2005). remand, the district court reviewed reports and scientific documents and heard testimony. convincing evidence that The court found by clear and medicating Evans would forcibly significantly further the Government's interest and was medically appropriate in light of Evans's condition. We affirm. This court reviews the district court's decision as to the two factors for clear error. See Evans, 404 F.3d at 240; see also United States v. Gomes, 387 F.3d 157, 159 (2d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1128 (2005). We find no clear error. We Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.* dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED We will not review the court's finding that medicating Evans was in the Government's interests. - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?