United States v. Under Seal, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5897

Background

Appellant (a juvenile at the time) was charged in federal juvenile delinquency proceedings for his role in an MS-13 murder; a separate federal adult prosecution of other MS-13 members was ongoing.
The government filed a sealed juvenile information under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 and later moved to dismiss the juvenile information without prejudice; the district court granted dismissal without prejudice and denied Appellant’s request to dismiss with prejudice.
The government sought and obtained court authorization to disclose (a) redacted portions of Appellant’s transfer-hearing transcript and (b) a redacted FBI investigative report to defense counsel in the adult case (as potential Brady material), subject to protective measures.
The government also obtained a protective order authorizing disclosure of Appellant’s identity to adult defense counsel under restrictions; Appellant objected and sought to prohibit disclosure.
Appellant appealed multiple orders: dismissal without prejudice, denial of dismissal with prejudice, the juvenile and adult disclosure/protective orders. The Fourth Circuit treated the appeals separately as to jurisdiction, standing, mootness, and merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to appeal dismissal without prejudice of juvenile information	Appellant argued the court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the dismissal.	Government contended dismissal without prejudice is interlocutory and not immediately appealable.	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice is interlocutory and not a collateral order.
Jurisdiction to appeal denial of motion to dismiss with prejudice under § 5036 (juvenile speedy-trial statute)	Appellant claimed denial violated his juvenile speedy-trial rights and warranted immediate review.	Government argued denial is interlocutory and not an appealable collateral order (analogous to Speedy Trial Act rulings).	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; § 5036-based denial is not immediately appealable.
Collateral-order jurisdiction and standing to appeal disclosure/protective orders	Appellant challenged authorization to disclose juvenile materials and identity; asserted confidentiality and safety interests.	Government maintained appeals were interlocutory or moot and that disclosure was justified for defense rights (Brady, material-witness issues).	Court had collateral-order jurisdiction to review disclosure orders; Appellant (a party in juvenile case) had standing to appeal juvenile orders and, as a nonparty, standing to challenge adult protective orders.
Mootness of identity disclosure and appropriate relief	Appellant sought reversal of identity disclosure authorization.	Government argued identity disclosure was complete and irreversible; relief would be ineffectual.	Disclosure of identity was moot; court vacated district-court authorization to disclose identity and remanded with instructions to dismiss prior identity-disclosure requests while preserving safeguards against dissemination.
Merits: permissive disclosure under JJDPA (18 U.S.C. § 5038) and whether disclosure of transcript and report was lawful	Appellant argued § 5038 bars disclosure of juvenile records/information except as specifically authorized; disclosure violated confidentiality and endangered him.	Government argued district court could permissively authorize disclosure (to protect defendants’ Brady and defense rights) and used redactions and protective measures to limit harm.	Affirmed: § 5038 permits limited, discretionary disclosures (consistent with circuit precedent); district court did not abuse discretion in authorizing redacted transcript and report with protective measures.

Key Cases Cited

Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (recognizing narrow collateral-order doctrine)
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (formulating collateral-order doctrine)
Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (final-judgment rule)
Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (non-mootness where government retains disclosed materials; remedy of return/destruction)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose favorable material)
United States v. Smith, 851 F.2d 706 (4th Cir.) (juvenile confidentiality interests justify immediate review)
United States v. Three Juveniles, 61 F.3d 86 (1st Cir.) (§ 5038 permits permissive disclosures)
United States v. A.D., 28 F.3d 1353 (3d Cir.) (same)
United States v. Lanham, 631 F.2d 356 (4th Cir.) (order dismissing indictment without prejudice not final)