UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4141
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID CLARENCE WARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-02-63)
Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric J. Foster, LAW OFFICE OF RICK FOSTER, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Donald D. Gast, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Clarence Ward was convicted after a jury trial of
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000), armed
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), possession of a
firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2000), and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Ward
challenges the district court’s order denying without prejudice his
motion for authorization for funds for psychiatric examination. We
affirm.
Appointment of an expert psychiatrist is permitted under
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e) (2000), in cases where competency or insanity
is an issue. A court may refuse to authorize § 3006A(e) expert
services on the ground that they are not necessary, if the court
concludes that the defendant does not have a plausible claim or
defense. See United States v. Fince, 670 F.2d 1356, 1357-58 (4th
Cir. 1982). The decision to deny or grant a motion for services
pursuant to § 3006A(e) is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court and may only be overturned upon a showing of abuse
of that discretion. See United States v. Hartsell, 127 F.3d 343,
349 (4th Cir. 1997). Ward’s motion stated that he was not
asserting incompetence to stand trial and he had not filed a notice
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2 raising mental condition as a
- 2 -
defense. Under these circumstances, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Ward’s motion.
Accordingly, we affirm Ward’s conviction. We grant the
motions to seal the Government’s brief and Ward’s reply brief. We
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
- 3 -