UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5148

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUVENILE MALE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00168-BO-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2010 Decided: December 15, 2010

Before DAVIS and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, 

Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juvenile Male appeals the district court’s order 

transferring him to adult status under the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042 (2006). Juvenile Male 

was charged in a three-count juvenile information with 

interference with commerce by robbery and aiding and abetting in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 2 (2006) (Count One), using a 

firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006) (Count Two), and being an 

illegal alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924 (2006) (Count Three). The Government 

certified to the district court that “there is a substantial 

Federal interest in the case and the offenses, to warrant the 

exercise of federal jurisdiction due to violent nature of the 

offenses.” 

Juvenile Male argues that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to transfer him to adult status under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 5032. Questions involving subject matter jurisdiction are 

reviewed de novo. United States v. White, 139 F.3d 998, 999-

1000 (4th Cir. 1998). 

Federal jurisdiction involving a juvenile alleged to 

have committed an act of juvenile delinquency is proper if the 

Government certifies that “the offense charged is a crime of 

violence that is a felony . . . and that there is a substantial 
3

Federal interest in the case or the offense to warrant the 

exercise of Federal jurisdiction.” 18 U.S.C. § 5032(3) (2006). 

The Government’s certification that a substantial federal 

interest exists is generally regarded as a matter of 

prosecutorial discretion, and while this decision is not immune 

from judicial review, we accord the decision substantial 

deference. United States v. Juvenile Male #1, 86 F.3d 1314, 

1319 (4th Cir. 1996).

In United States v. T.M., 413 F.3d 420, 427 (4th Cir. 

2005), we held that a substantial federal interest exists in 

§ 924(c) prosecutions. Juvenile Male attempts to distinguish 

T.M. by arguing that in T.M., the victim was actually beaten and 

shot, whereas in his offense, the victim was not. Juvenile Male 

claims that the conduct in T.M. was more violent and egregious

than the conduct in which he engaged. We conclude that this 

distinction is of no consequence; it does not alter our previous 

holding that because using a firearm during a crime of violence 

carries harsh penalties that Congress enacted as an urgent 

measure to control criminal use of firearms, the Government 

possesses a substantial interest in § 924(c) prosecutions. The 

district court properly exercised jurisdiction in this case.

Next, Juvenile Male argues that the district court 

abused its discretion in transferring him to adult status 

because it wrongfully found that his chances of rehabilitation
4

were minimal. Juvenile Male also argues that the district court

gave insufficient weight to his lack of a prior criminal record, 

and did not consider that at the end of any juvenile sentence 

Juvenile Male would be deported. 

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s 

decision to transfer a juvenile to adult prosecution. United 

States v. Juvenile Male, 554 F.3d 456, 465 (4th Cir. 2009). A 

district court abuses its discretion if it fails to make the 

required factual findings, or if those factual findings are 

clearly erroneous. United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 858 

(4th Cir. 2005). We review de novo the district court’s legal 

rulings relating to the entry of the transfer order. See United 

States v. Soriano-Jarquin, 492 F.3d 495, 501-02 (4th Cir. 2007). 

A juvenile may be transferred to adult status, “if the 

district court finds, after hearing, such transfer would be in 

the interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 5032. In making that 

determination, the district court must consider the following 

six factors: (1) the juvenile’s age and social background; (2) 

the nature of the alleged offense; (3) the extent and nature of 

the juvenile’s prior delinquency record; (4) the juvenile’s 

present intellectual development and psychological maturity; (5) 

the nature of past treatment efforts and the juvenile’s response 

to such efforts; and (6) the availability of programs designed 

to treat the juvenile’s behavioral problems. Id. The 
5

Government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the 

evidence that a transfer to adult status would be in the 

interest of justice. Juvenile Male #1, 86 F.3d at 1323. The 

district court may determine what weight to give the various 

factors. Id. In the “interest of justice” analysis, the 

district court must weigh the rehabilitative purposes of the 

juvenile justice system against the need to protect the public 

from violent individuals. Id.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring 

Juvenile Male to adult status. The district court made the 

appropriate factual findings, carefully considered those facts 

as applied to the transfer factors, and correctly weighed all of 

the factors to determine that transfer of Juvenile Male was in 

the interest of justice. We discern no sound basis to disturb 

the district court’s judgment.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED