United States v. Curbow

Summary

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of North Carolina’s order civilly committing Gary Curbow under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 after he was found incompetent to stand trial and dangerous to others. The court rejected his argument that he was ineligible for certification because the Attorney General no longer had legal custody of him, distinguishing and applying the court’s prior decision in United States v. Wayda. The court also rejected Curbow’s additional challenges to his civil commitment.

Holdings

1. The 49-day period between the June 6, 2019 unrestorability determination and the July 25, 2019 filing of the § 4246 certificate was reasonable, so Curbow remained eligible for certification under § 4246(a).
2. Curbow waived his theory that alleged unreasonable delays during his first two periods of § 4241(d) custody caused his legal custody to expire before the third period began.
3. The eligibility provisions in § 4246(a) establish an element of a civil commitment claim rather than a subject-matter jurisdictional condition.
4. Curbow waived his contention that the district court was required to receive additional evidence and make separate findings concerning the unavailability of suitable state custody and care because he did not raise the issue below.
5. Any assumed error in the district court's explanation of its dangerousness finding was harmless because Curbow did not challenge the sufficiency of the dangerousness evidence, and his own expert agreed that he met the statutory definition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Curbow was eligible for civil commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a) when the Government filed the dangerousness certificate.
2. Whether the 49-day period between the unrestorability determination and the filing of the § 4246 certificate was unreasonable under United States v. Wayda.
3. Whether alleged delays during Curbow's first two periods of competency-related custody rendered him ineligible for later § 4246 certification.
4. Whether § 4246(a)'s eligibility provisions are subject-matter jurisdictional or may be waived.
5. Whether the district court erred by failing to require additional evidence regarding the unavailability of state custody and care or by inadequately explaining its dangerousness finding.

Disposition

affirmed