Opinion ID: 763084
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Past Treatment Efforts and Availability of Appropriate Programs

Text: 9 Anthony Y. argues that the district court abused its discretion by finding that the government and defense experts who testified about past and future treatment cancel[ed] out one another. Aplt. Br. at 40. He asserts the district court must make findings as to each factor and abdicated this responsibility here. Furthermore, because the district court failed to find that these two factors supported a transfer to adult status, Anthony Y. argues the government failed to carry its burden of persuasion on the transfer issue. 10 Section 5032 mandates that the district court consider and make findings as to each of the six statutory factors. In addition, the government must present evidence on each factor. See United States v. M.H., 901 F.Supp. 1211, 1213 (E.D.Tex.1995) (Failure of the government to address any factor leads to a denial of the transfer request.); United States v. A.J.M., 685 F.Supp. 1192, 1192-93 (D.N.M.1988). However, the district court need not find that each factor weighs in favor of transfer in order to grant the government's motion. The court need not even find a majority of factors weigh in favor of the prevailing party, as it is not required to give equal weight to each factor but 'may balance them as it deems appropriate.'  Leon, D.M., 132 F.3d at 589 (quoting Juvenile Male # 1, 47 F.3d at 71). Indeed, though the court must address each factor, it is not required to state whether each specific factor favors or disfavors transfer. Id. The decision to transfer is a grave and often difficult one, and does not lend itself to simple mathematical formulas. See United States v. Wilson, 149 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir.1998). Rather, the district court must balance the evidence before it, weighing each factor as it sees fit, to determine whether a transfer to adult status best serves the interest of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 5032. 11 The district court found that the fifth factor, past treatment efforts and response to such efforts, and the sixth factor, availability of appropriate programs, neither favored nor disfavored transfer. Dr. Hill, the government's expert, and Dr. Enfield, the defense expert, disagreed about whether Anthony Y. had ever been given the opportunity to partake in an appropriate treatment program, and whether he could be rehabilitated in the proper setting. In its decision to transfer Anthony Y., the district court discussed the evidence regarding each factor. It described both experts as credible, rec., vol. I, doc. 85 at 12, and did not find that one's opinion outweighed the other. Because of this, Anthony Y. argues that the district court improperly failed to make the statutorily mandated findings. We disagree. 12 The district court's opinion simply indicates it found the evidence on the fifth and sixth factors in equipoise, a decision well within its discretion. The government thus did not meet its burden of convincing the court that the circumstances of past treatment and availability of treatment programs favored transfer to adult status. Because the district court engages in a balancing of all six factors, however, the government may still ultimately prevail even though it failed to a prove a particular factor warrants transfer. 2 See, e.g., Wilson, 149 F.3d at 612-614; One Juvenile Male, 40 F.3d at 845-46. We hold the district court's findings on the fifth and sixth factor were within its discretion, and did not preclude its decision to transfer Anthony Y. to adult status.