US v. Evans

Filing 920060912

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

*