UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4392
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVEN MARK MACKIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CR-03-7-SGW)
Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John P. Fishwick, Jr., LICHTENSTEIN, FISHWICK & JOHNSON, P.L.C.,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States
Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney,
Jill Lowell, Third-year Practice Law Student, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven Mark Mackie appeals from the district court’s
order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons to administer forced or
involuntary antipsychotic medication to Mackie in order to render
him competent to stand trial. Mackie was indicted in January 2003
for federal firearms offenses. At his guilty plea hearing, the
district court questioned Mackie’s mental condition and his
competence to stand trial; accordingly, the court directed a
psychiatric examination.
At a hearing held on February 19, 2004, the evaluating
psychologist from FCI Butner, Dr. Wiener, testified that Mackie was
incompetent to stand trial and that only medication would restore
his competency. Dr. Sarrazin, a staff psychiatrist from FCI
Springfield, also evaluated Mackie and testified that he found
Mackie incompetent to stand trial. According to Dr. Sarrazin,
Mackie suffers from “a psychotic disorder, most likely
schizophrenia.” Sarrazin further stated that “absent intervention
with antipsychotic medications, it is very unlikely that [Mackie’s]
mental status will change in any appreciable amount in the near
future.”
Based on Dr. Wiener’s and Dr. Sarrazin’s testimony, the
district court made the following factual findings:
1. Mackie is presently suffering from a
mental disease rendering him incompetent
to stand trial to the extent that he is
- 2 -
unable to assist properly with his
defense.
2. While incompetent, Mackie does not pose
an increased risk of danger to himself or
others because of his mental disorder.
3. With atypical antipsychotic and/or other
appropriate medication, there is a
substantial likelihood that Mackie can be
restored to competency within a
reasonable time.
4. Although there is a small probability,
the proposed medication is not
substantially likely to cause any serious
side effects or any side effects that
could interfere significantly with
Mackie’s ability to assist in his
defense.
5. Atypical antipsychotic and, if needed,
alternative forms of medication are
medically appropriate.
6. Less intrusive means of treatment, such
as group or individual therapy, are
unlikely to restore Mackie to competency.
The district court denied Mackie’s motion for reconsideration; he
has timely appealed.
In Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), the
Supreme Court held that the Government may involuntarily medicate
a mentally ill defendant to render him competent for trial if: [i]
there are important governmental interests in trying the
individual; [ii] the treatment will significantly further those
interests; [iii] the treatment is necessary to further those
interests, considering any less intrusive alternatives; and [iv]
the treatment is medically appropriate. See id. at 180-81. Our
- 3 -
review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no
error in the district court’s application of the Sell factors in
ordering forced medication. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See United States v. Mackie, No. CR-
03-7-SGW (W.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2004, and May 12, 2004).
We deny Mackie’s pro se motion for appointment of
counsel. 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
- 4 -