1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

No. 20-1903

_____________

PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

v.

GARY SIMMONDS,

 Appellant 

_____________

Appeal from the District Court

of the Virgin Islands Appellate Division

District Court No. 1-08-cr-00029-001

District Judges: The Honorable Curtis V. Gomez

The Honorable Wilma A. Lewis

_____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) 

on December 7, 2020

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and MATEY, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 11, 2020)

_______________

OPINION

________________

SMITH, Chief Judge.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.
2

Gary Simmonds appeals the order of the Appellate Division of the District 

Court of the Virgin Islands remanding his case to the Superior Court of the Virgin 

Islands with instruction to impose a conviction and sentence for simple assault and 

battery. Because we lack jurisdiction over the Appellate Division’s non-final 

order, we will dismiss the appeal in part. To the extent we have jurisdiction to

review the discrete issue of the Appellate Division’s exercise of subject matter 

jurisdiction, we will affirm.

I.

In May 2005, Tracia Walter-Simmonds reported to police that Simmonds, 

her husband, had hit her. Virgin Islands prosecutors charged Simmonds with 

aggravated assault and battery under V.I. Code Ann. tit. 14 § 298(5), which 

provides, inter alia, that an assault and battery1 qualifies as “aggravated” if the 

defendant is male and the victim is female. After a bench trial, the Superior Court 

convicted Simmonds, imposed a six-month suspended sentence and one year of 

supervised probation, and ordered him to complete one hundred hours of 

community service and enroll in an anger management course. 

At that time, decisions of the Superior Court were appealed to the Appellate 

Division of the District Court. See 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(a), (b). On appeal, 

1 Under Virgin Islands law, “[w]hoever uses any unlawful violence upon the 

person of another with intent to injure him, whatever be the means or the degree of 

violence used, commits an assault and battery.” V.I. Code Ann. tit. 14 § 292.
3

Simmonds argued, among other things, that his conviction was unconstitutional 

because the aggravating factor discriminated against him on the basis of gender in 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In April 

2020, the Appellate Division concluded that the aggravated offense was 

unconstitutional. It vacated Simmonds’s conviction and sentence and remanded 

his case to the Superior Court with instructions to enter a new conviction and 

sentence for the lesser included offense of simple assault and battery. 

After the Appellate Division denied his request for rehearing, Simmonds 

filed this appeal. He challenges only the portion of the judgment directing a 

remand, contending that the Appellate Division lacked authority to direct that he be 

convicted of the lesser included offense. 

II.

We cannot reach the merits of Simmonds’s appeal unless we have 

jurisdiction to do so. Under 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(c), we “have jurisdiction of appeals 

from all final decisions of the district court on appeal from the courts established 

by local law.” The decision before us does not qualify as an appealable final 

decision. 

“[W]ith regard to the question of finality, we have treated appeals from the 

Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands no differently than 

appeals taken from any other federal district court.” Ortiz v. Dodge, 126 F.3d 545, 
4

548 (3d Cir. 1997). We therefore consider whether the order “ends the litigation 

on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Id. 

at 547 (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). Where, as here,

the Appellate Division vacates a criminal sentence and remands the matter for 

further proceedings, the matter is ongoing and there is no “final decision” for our 

jurisdictional purposes.2 Gov’t of the V.I. v. Rivera, 333 F.3d 143, 150 (3d Cir. 

2003). Accordingly, we lack appellate jurisdiction to review this non-final order.

III.

Simmonds contends that “a criminal court lacks jurisdiction to enter a 

conviction of a lesser included offense violating an unconstitutional statute.” 

Simmonds Br. 16. To the extent Simmonds is suggesting that the Appellate 

Division was acting without subject matter jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction to 

consider this limited question. See Gov’t of the V.I. v. Hodge, 359 F.3d 312, 320 

(3d Cir. 2004) (observing that we retain jurisdiction to review the limited question 

2 Neither party suggests, nor do we discern, any basis for invoking appellate 

jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. See Gov’t of the V.I. v. 

Rivera, 333 F.3d 143, 150 n.16 (3d Cir. 2003). Moreover, although intervening 

legislative changes impacting the structure of the Virgin Islands court system mean 

that the parties will not return to our Court for review of Simmonds’s future 

sentence, see Defoe v. Phillip, 702 F.3d 735, 737–39, 737 n.1 (3d Cir. 2012); 48 

U.S.C. § 1613a(d), this procedural posture does not impact our conclusion that 

finality is absent. Cf. Rivera, 333 F.3d at 151 (the government’s inability, by 

statute, to pursue a future appeal after imposition of a new sentence is a matter for 

the legislature and does not impact the conclusion that a final, appealable decision 

is absent).
5

of the Appellate Division’s determination of its own subject matter jurisdiction). 

We exercise plenary review over this issue. Id. at 323. 

Simmonds contends that, upon concluding that the aggravator was 

unconstitutional, the Appellate Division lost subject matter jurisdiction to take any 

action other than dismissing his case. Contrary to his claim, a “court of appellate 

jurisdiction . . . may remand [a case] and direct the entry of such appropriate 

judgment, decree, or order . . . as may be just under the circumstance.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2106. The Appellate Division has “appellate jurisdiction over the courts of the 

Virgin Islands.” 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(a). The Appellate Division therefore was 

within its authority—and had subject matter jurisdiction—to remand the case with 

direction to impose a conviction and sentence on a lesser included offense. Indeed, 

in past cases where a conviction of aggravated assault and battery is vacated on 

grounds that the aggravating factor is unconstitutional, the Appellate Division has 

directed a remand for application of the lesser included offense of assault and 

battery.3 See Humienny v. Gov’t of the V.I., 79 F. Supp. 3d 548, 551 (D.V.I. 2015); 

see also V.I. R. Crim. P. 31(c)(1).

Simmonds relies upon Moravian School Advisory Board v. Rawlins, 70 F.3d 

270, 287–88 (3d Cir. 1995), a civil case in which we held that, where the District 

3 As previously noted, we lack jurisdiction to opine on the correctness of the 

remand decision. We limit our analysis solely to the Appellate Division’s 

conclusion that it retained subject matter jurisdiction to remand. 
6

Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it was required to dismiss the matter rather 

than transfer it to the territorial courts. But, as we have already concluded, the 

Appellate Division did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in Simmonds’s case. 

Moravian is inapposite.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate 

jurisdiction, except for the limited issue of reviewing the Appellate Division’s 

exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. To that extent only, we will affirm.