USCA11 Case: 22-12931 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/31/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12931
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN L. MCCARTHY,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00061-RBD-PRL-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12931 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/31/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12931
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John McCarthy appeals his commitment to the custody of
the Attorney General for examination of his competency to stand
trial,
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), and argues that the commitment violates
his due process rights. We affirm.
In September 2021, a federal grand jury charged McCarthy
with attempted sex trafficking of a minor,
id. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1)
and 1594(a), because he allegedly attempted to have a sexual en-
counter with a three-year-old child. After McCarthy, who was 91
years old when arrested, was found unresponsive in his jail cell and
treated at a hospital, he was released on bond to home detention.
A few months later, McCarthy’s counsel informed the dis-
trict court that her client likely was incompetent to stand trial due
to dementia and other end-of-life conditions. The district court re-
quested briefing on whether it must commit him to the custody of
the Attorney General for medical care to determine restorability,
id. § 4241(d). The government responded that the plain language
of section 4241(d) was mandatory. McCarthy’s counsel agreed that
the statute required commitment for a restorability evaluation but
argued that commitment was pointless and would violate his due-
process rights because the health professionals she consulted as-
sessed him as unrestorable.
USCA11 Case: 22-12931 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/31/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-12931 Opinion of the Court 3
After a hearing, a magistrate judge found McCarthy incom-
petent to stand trial, as both parties had conceded. The magistrate
judge determined, based on our precedent applying section
4241(d), that McCarthy must be committed to the custody of the
Attorney General for a determination of restorability. The district
court, over McCarthy’s objections, adopted the commitment or-
der.
Our precedent forecloses McCarthy’s due-process argu-
ments. In United States v. Donofrio, we held that, under section
4241(d), “[o]nce the district court decides that a defendant is incom-
petent to stand trial, it is appropriate that he be hospitalized for a
careful determination of the likelihood of regaining mental capac-
ity to stand trial.”
896 F.2d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir. 1990). McCarthy
argues, as Donofrio did, that his commitment violates due process
concerns under Jackson v. Indiana,
406 U.S. 715 (1972), because his
competency is unlikely to be restored and he is close to death. But
we have explained that the requirement in section 4241(d), enacted
in response to Jackson, that the commitment period be “reasona-
ble” for the purpose of regaining competency and be for no more
than four months, satisfies due process. Donofrio,
896 F.2d at 1303.
And because the statute plainly requires that a district court “shall
commit the defendant” if it finds he is incompetent to stand trial,
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) (emphasis added), the “permanency of [his]
condition [is] . . . for later consideration by the court.” Donofrio,
896
F.2d at 1303.
We AFFIRM McCarthy’s order of commitment.
