UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
medication to render a defendant competent to stand trial. See
United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2005). On
remand, the district court reviewed reports and scientific
documents and heard testimony. The court found by clear and
convincing evidence that forcibly medicating Evans would
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.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.* 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
*
We will not review the court’s finding that medicating Evans
was in the Government’s interests.
- 2 -