US v. Juvenile Male

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00036-RGD-FBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998444181] [10-4501]

US v. Juvenile Male

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4501 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/13/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4501 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUVENILE MALE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cr-00036-RGD-FBS-1) Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew A. Protogyrou, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, William D. Muhr, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4501 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/13/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: By way of this interlocutory appeal, Juvenile Male

("J.M."), who was sixteen years old when he was charged as a delinquent, * challenges the district court's order granting the Government's motion to transfer proceedings against a juvenile to adult criminal proceedings. J.M. claims that the

Government's certification to proceed under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was insufficient because it

failed to properly assert that there was a substantial federal interest. He also claims the district court abused its

discretion in granting the Government's motion to transfer the case to adult criminal proceedings. Finding no error, we

affirm. We conclude the Government's assertion that there was a substantial federal interest at stake was sufficient. United States v. T.M., 413 F.3d 420, 424-27 (4th Cir. 2005). See We

further conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Government's motion to transfer the case to

adult criminal proceedings.

United States v. Juvenile Male, 554 The nature of the charges

F.3d 456, 460, 468 (4th Cir. 2009).

18 juvenile . picture of a juvenile

*

U.S.C. § 5038(e) (2006) provides that "[u]nless a . . is prosecuted as an adult neither the name nor any juvenile shall be made public in connection with delinquency proceeding." 2

Case: 10-4501 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/13/2010

Page: 3

clearly warranted the transfer. F.3d 850, 858 (4th Cir. 2005).

United States v. Robinson, 404 We also conclude the court did

not clearly err in finding J.M.'s leadership role in the offense and his response to rehabilitative efforts warranted transfer. See 18 U.S.C. § 5032 (2006). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3