Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-05
Citations: 672 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 16-6148
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6148
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 18, 2016
Decided: January 5, 2017
John Keating Wiles, Cheshire Parker Schneider & Bryan, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Koch-er, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court's order finding him mentally incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1) (2012). Davis argues that the district court erred by denying him an opportunity to testify at his competency hearing. Having reviewed the record, we agree that,' despite Davis' request, the district court did not allow him to testify at the hearing, a right specifically guaranteed to him by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(c), 4247(d) (2012).
Accordingly, we vacate the challenged order and remand the case to the district court with instructions to conduct a new initial competency determination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(c). We deny the Government's motion to dismiss, as well as all of Davis' motions, including his motions for stay, to appoint and to replace counsel, for transcripts, for sanctions, and for such other relief as he has requested. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED