United States v. Moore ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4423
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANK WILSON MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-03-16-A)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dale Warren Dover, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael E. Rich, Assistant United
States Attorney, Mark A. Grider, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frank Wilson Moore appeals his conviction for being a
felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of § 922(g) (2000),
and possession of an unregistered silencer, in violation of 26
U.S.C. §§ 5861, 5871 (2000).
Moore contends that the involuntary administration of
antipsychotic drugs violated his due process rights. Because Moore
failed to challenge the medical finding that such administration
was necessary in the district court, the issue is reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Maxton, 940 F.2d 103, 105 (4th Cir.
1991). To reverse for plain error, the court must: (1) identify
an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects the defendant’s
substantial rights, and (4) that affects the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v.
Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1434-35 (4th Cir. 1993).
A mentally ill defendant may be involuntarily medicated
to render him competent for trial if: (1) there are important
governmental interests in trying the individual; (2) the treatment
will significantly further those interests; (3) the treatment is
necessary to further those interests, considering any less
intrusive alternatives; and (4) the treatment is medically
appropriate. Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 180-81 (2003).
The district court’s findings as to the first factor are legal in
nature while the remaining inquiries are of a factual character.
- 2 -
United States v. Gomes, 387 F.3d 157, 159 (2d Cir. 2004). After
careful consideration of the evidence, we conclude that the
district court’s legal and factual determinations were correct.
Sell, 539 U.S. at 180-81. Accordingly we find no plain error.
Brewer, 1 F.3d at 1434-35.
Moore also contends that the district court erred by
prohibiting expert testimony as to his ability to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his actions. A district court’s rulings regarding
the admission of expert testimony will not be reversed absent a
clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Barsanti, 943 F.2d
428, 432 (4th Cir. 1991). Rule 704(b) provides that an expert
witness in a criminal case may not "state an opinion or inference
as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or
condition constituting an element of the crime charged." Fed. R.
Evid. 704(b). After careful review of the record, we conclude that
the district court properly limited the expert testimony as
required by Fed. R. Evid. 704(b). We further hold that Rule 704(b)
does not violate due process. United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78
F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that Rule 704(b) does not
violate due process); United States v. Austin, 981 F.2d 1163 (10th
Cir. 1992); United States v. Blumberg, 961 F.2d 787 (8th Cir.
1992).
Accordingly, we affirm Moore’s conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -