United States v. Anderson
679 F. App'x 711
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2015, Felicia Anderson was arrested after DEA agents found five kilograms of cocaine in her luggage; she was charged with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute.
- Anderson has a longstanding diagnosis of mild intellectual disability (diagnosed since age 13).
- A retained psychologist concluded Anderson was not competent to stand trial; the district court ordered a competency hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241.
- The court-appointed psychologist also found Anderson incompetent and not amenable to treatment; the district court so found by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The district court granted the government’s motion and committed Anderson to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) to determine restorability.
- Anderson appealed the non-final § 4241(d) commitment order; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4241(d) requires mandatory commitment after a finding of incompetence | Anderson: mandatory commitment violates due process unless court first finds improbability of improvement; she sought a pre-commitment inquiry into amenability to treatment and likelihood of restoration | Government: § 4241(d) is plain and mandatory — once incompetence is found, the court must commit to the Attorney General for evaluation/treatment up to the statutory limit | The court held § 4241(d) is unambiguous and mandatory; commitment to the Attorney General is required after a finding of incompetence, and this procedure comports with Jackson v. Indiana because it limits duration and purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1997) (§ 4241(d) commitment orders are immediately appealable)
- United States v. Porter, 745 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (plain-language statutory interpretation governs)
- Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969 (2016) (‘‘shall’’ typically denotes a mandatory duty)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) (limits on civil commitment for restoration: reasonable period and relation to purpose; substantial probability standard)
- United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 2008) (interpreting § 4241(d) as mandatory)
- United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (same)
- United States v. Ferro, 321 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2003) (same)
- United States v. Donofrio, 896 F.2d 1301 (11th Cir. 1990) (same)
- United States v. Shawar, 865 F.2d 856 (7th Cir. 1989) (same)