UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. See
United States v. T.M., 413 F.3d 420, 424-27 (4th Cir. 2005). 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
F.3d 456, 460, 468 (4th Cir. 2009). The nature of the charges
*
18 U.S.C. § 5038(e) (2006) provides that “[u]nless a
juvenile . . . is prosecuted as an adult neither the name nor
picture of any juvenile shall be made public in connection with
a juvenile delinquency proceeding.”
2
clearly warranted the transfer. United States v. Robinson, 404
F.3d 850, 858 (4th Cir. 2005). 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. 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