PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

THEODORE MACON CARRINGTON, JR.,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cr-00005-UA-1)

Argued: September 20, 2023 Decided: January 23, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Heytens and Senior Judge Floyd joined.

ARGUED: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7138 Doc: 67 Filed: 01/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 29

RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge:

Theodore Carrington appeals the district court’s order finding him “subject to the

[civil-commitment] provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246.” J.A. 301. He argues that (1) the

order is invalid because he was no longer in the Attorney General’s legitimate, time-

sensitive custody when the court made this finding, and (2) he received ineffective

assistance of trial counsel. But we lack jurisdiction to hear Carrington’s claims on the

merits. The district court’s order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable collateral

order. So, for these reasons, we dismiss his appeal. 1

I. Legal Framework

Carrington’s appeal deals with the unfortunate reality that some criminal defendants

are mentally incompetent to stand trial and are thus committed to specialized government

institutions pretrial. And some of those defendants have persistent mental illnesses that

make them dangerous enough to warrant their long-term commitment, even if they are not

convicted of a crime. But the Constitution rightly prohibits a person from being detained

indefinitely just because he falls into the former category. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S.

715, 738 (1972). So, to commit a criminal defendant beyond the time needed to determine

whether his competency to stand trial may be restored, the government must institute civil-

commitment proceedings to establish that he falls into the latter category. Id.

1 Carrington filed this appeal in conjunction with another appeal from his civil- commitment proceedings. We address this second appeal in an unpublished opinion issued today. See United States v. Carrington, No. 23-6348 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) (unpublished).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7138 Doc: 67 Filed: 01/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 29

Two federal statutes implement these principles: 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4246. The

first establishes procedures for holding a criminal defendant in custody pending a

determination of his competency to stand trial. The second addresses the separate civil

proceedings the government must institute in order to commit him outside of § 4241’s

limits. The interplay between these statutes requires some unpacking.

A. Section 4241

During a criminal prosecution, either the defendant or the government may reque

Click Here to Read the rest of this document