United States v. Richard Savage
737 F.3d 304
4th Cir.2013Background
- Savage, a District of Columbia offender, was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person under 18 U.S.C. § 4248 after serving a DC sentence in a BOP facility in North Carolina.
- The government certified Savage under § 4248(a); a stay in the civil-commitment proceedings followed pending related litigation (Comstock).
- CSOSA asked about Savage’s prospective DC release; BOP informed CSOSA that Savage would not be released due to civil commitment, after which CSOSA closed the DC case.
- Savage moved to dismiss and sought immediate release, arguing he was not in the BOP’s custody for § 4248 purposes, a position aligned with United States v. Joshua.
- The district court rejected Savage’s jurisdictional challenge, and Savage was subjected to a § 4248 commitment hearing, after which the court found in his favor on the non-jurisdictional criteria and ordered commitment.
- Savage appealed, challenging the custody jurisdiction under § 4248(a) and arguing that § 4248(d) required release to the District of Columbia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Savage was in the BOP’s custody for § 4248(a) purposes | Savage: DC offender not in BOP legal custody under § 4248(a). | Savage is in the BOP’s legal custody due to the Revitalization Act; BOP has ultimate legal authority over DC offenders. | Savage was in the BOP’s legal custody; district court had jurisdiction to commit. |
| Whether § 4248(d) required release to the District of Columbia | Release to DC was required because DC expressed willingness to assume custody. | Argument waived; was not properly raised in district court. | Waived; appellate court refuses to consider the § 4248(d) release issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Joshua, 607 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2010) (custody under § 4248 requires legal custody, not mere confinement)
- Frazier v. United States, 339 F.2d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (custody denotes legal custody not limited to physical custody)
- Chase v. Pub. Defender Serv., 956 A.2d 67 (D.C. 2008) (revitalization of custody over DC offenders and federal responsibilities)
- United States v. Hernandez-Arenado, 571 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2009) (ICE custody status contrasted with BOP custody in § 4248 context)
- Comstock, 551 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2009) (context for § 4248 proceedings and related nationwide practice)