US v. Todd Giffen - Civil Commitment Appeal

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6056 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. TODD MICHAEL GI FFEN, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the Eastern Distri ct of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judg e. (5:22 - hc - 02006 - FL) Submitted: February 13, 202 6 Decided: February 27, 2026 Before HARRIS an d QUATTL EBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Kelly Margolis Dagger, ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Genna Danelle Petre, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Caro lina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: In December 2022, Todd Mich ael Giffen was civilly c ommitted under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 to the custody of the Attorney General. T he instant appeal co ncerns onl y the district court’s post - commitment ord er denying Giffen’s motions to sub stitute counsel and for a discharge hearing and his immediate release. C ounsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding th ere are no meritorious issues fo r appeal but qu estioning whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal, and whether the district court erred by d enying Giffen’s motion s. This court may exercise jurisdictio n only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, a nd certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); C ohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54 5 - 46 (1949). “ The collateral order doctrine allows a party to immediately appeal non - final orders because they are conclusive, resolve important questions separate from the merits, and are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying acti on. ” Rainbow Sch., Inc. v. Rainbow Early Educ. Holding LLC, 887 F. 3d 610, 62 2 (4th Ci r. 2018) (citation modified). T he portion of the district court’s order deny ing Giffen’s motion to substitute counsel did not conclusively decide the issue, as t he district court retained discretion to revisit the decision. E.g., Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 96 5-66 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we d ismiss th is portion of the appeal for lack of jurisd iction. Turning to the district court’s d enial of Giffen’s motion for his release, “[18 U.S.C. §] 4247(h) p rovides the process by which a civilly committed person may seek a discharge.” United Sta tes v. Vazques, 81 F.4th 82 0, 82 2 (8th Ci r. 2023). Because the

3 denial of a discharge hearing continu es an individual’s civil comm itment, we find that we have jurisdiction over this portion of the court’s ord er. See id. (finding that ap pellate court “[had ] jurisdictio n under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ” and affirming denial of pro se motion for discharge hearing under § 4247(h)); see al so Un ited States v. Maclaren, 866 F.3d 212, 21 6 (4th Cir. 2017) (considering d enial of counseled motion for § 4247(h) discharge hearing). Section 4247(h) provide s: R egardless of whether the director of the facility in which a person is committed has filed a certificate pu rsuant to the provisions of[, inter alia, § 4246(e),] counsel for the person or his legal guardian may, at any time during s uch pers on ’ s commitment, file with the court that ordered the commitment a motion for a heari ng to determine whether the person sh ould be discharged from such facility. . . Thus, as the district court found in denying Giffen’s pro se mo tion, § 4247(h) “ plainly permits only counsel or the legal g uardian of the committed person to file a motion to discharge. ” Vazques, 81 F.4th at 822. A ccordingly, we affirm this portion o f the district court’s order. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore deny Giffen’s pending mot ions on ap peal, dismiss the appeal in part, and affirm in p art. This court requires that coun sel inform Giffen, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United S tates for further review. If Giffen requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolou s, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Giffen. We dispense with o ral argument because the facts

4 and legal contentions are adeq uately presented in the materials b efore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN P ART, AFFIRMED IN PART