United States v. Daniel Carr ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6853
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Petitioner - Appellee,
    v.
    DANIEL G. CARR,
    Respondent - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-hc-02121-FL)
    Submitted: September 30, 2019                                     Decided: October 3, 2019
    Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jaclyn L. DiLauro, Assistant Federal Public
    Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Joshua B. Royster, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Michael Lockridge, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel G. Carr appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
    60(b) motion to reconsider a civil commitment order entered in 2013 pursuant to the Adam
    Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2012) on the grounds
    that his prior conviction under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
    (“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2012), was vacated. See Nichols v. United States, 136
    S Ct. 1113 (2016) (concluding that SORNA does not require individuals to update their
    registration upon leaving the country). Carr sought an order vacating his civil commitment,
    citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), (5), and (6).
    In light of our decision in United States v. Welsh, 
    879 F.3d 530
    (2018), cert. denied,
    
    139 S. Ct. 1168
    (2019), we find no error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we
    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
    and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6853

Filed Date: 10/3/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/3/2019