US v. Ike Simmons
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00007-BR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. . [14-4838]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
IKE DAVID SIMMONS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00007-BR-1)
May 11, 2015
May 22, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Seth M. Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Ike David Simmons was sentenced to 600 months’ imprisonment
Simmons raises only one issue:
whether the district court erred
in failing to strike or redact Paragraph 29 of his Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”).
We dismiss the appeal.
Simmons’ history of psychosexual treatment.
Simmons objected to
the inclusion of this paragraph on the basis that it could be
used in a future civil commitment certification hearing under
the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2012).
The district court
overruled Simmons’ objection, noting that the information in the
paragraph “had no impact on the advisory guideline range.”
On appeal, Simmons argues that he has a right to privacy in
the information, and that the Government’s interest in including
the information fails to overcome this right.
contends that we should dismiss the appeal as unripe.
Ripeness is a threshold question of justiciability, arising
out of the “case or controversy” language found in Article III.
Scoggins v. Lee’s Crossing Homeowners Ass’n, 718 F.3d 262, 269
(4th Cir. 2013).
“The issue of ripeness entails an analysis
considering the fitness of the issues before the court, as well
Pg: 3 of 4
as the hardship that the parties will experience if the court
withholds consideration of the dispute.”
Id. at 270.
is required to prevent the courts “from becoming entangled in
Id. at 270 (quoting Abbott Labs. v.
Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)).
A claim is unripe “‘if it
anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’”
F.3d at 270 (quoting Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300
In United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926, 931 (9th Cir.
2009), the defendant also raised an objection to the inclusion
challenge the use of the information at sentencing, nor did he
challenge the other ways that the Bureau of Prisons might use
The court classified the fear of civil
event’ that ‘may not happen at all’” and dismissed the appeal as
Id. at 932.
Here, Simmons does not challenge the district court’s use
of the information at sentencing.
Simmons’ concern about the
Pg: 4 of 4
information at a possible future civil commitment hearing.
approximately 40 years.
Moreover, Simmons will only face civil
commitment if the Government decides to pursue civil commitment
and meets its burden to prove by clear and convicting evidence
that Simmons is sexually dangerous.
18 U.S.C. § 4248(d) (2012);
cf. United States v. Legrano, 659 F.2d 17, 18 (4th Cir. 1981)
jeopardize defendant’s chances in a future parole proceeding,
noting that there were administrative avenues to challenge the
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?