Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. JON KARL THOMPSON, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02253-FL) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jon Ka
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. JON KARL THOMPSON, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02253-FL) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jon Kar..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
JON KARL THOMPSON,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02253-FL)
Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jon Karl Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jon Karl Thompson appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for
appointment of a guardian ad litem and for transfer to Arkansas. Our review of the
record discloses that Thompson failed to demonstrate entitlement to appointment of a
guardian ad litem under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). Nor has he demonstrated that Arkansas is
willing to accept responsibility for his custody, care and treatment. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 4248(d) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm. 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