United States v. Todd Giffen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-6056
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6056 Doc: 49 Filed: 02/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner - Appellee,

v.

TODD MICHAEL GIFFEN,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:22-hc-02006-FL)

Submitted: February 13, 2026 Decided: February 27, 2026

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Kelly Margolis Dagger, ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Genna Danelle Petre, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6056 Doc: 49 Filed: 02/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In December 2022, Todd Michael Giffen was civilly committed under 18 U.S.C.

§ 4246 to the custody of the Attorney General. The instant appeal concerns only the district

court’s post-commitment order denying Giffen’s motions to substitute counsel and for a

discharge hearing and his immediate release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal

but questioning whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal, and whether the district

court erred by denying Giffen’s motions.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “The collateral order

doctrine allows a party to immediately appeal non-final orders because they are conclusive,

resolve important questions separate from the merits, and are effectively unreviewable on

appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.” Rainbow Sch., Inc. v. Rainbow

Early Educ. Holding LLC, 887 F.3d 610, 622 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation modified). The

portion of the district court’s order denying Giffen’s motion to substitute counsel did not

conclusively decide the issue, as the district court retained discretion to revisit the decision.

E.g., Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 965-66 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we dismiss

this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Turning to the district court’s denial of Giffen’s motion for his release, “[18 U.S.C.

§] 4247(h) provides the process by which a civilly committed person may seek a

discharge.” United States v. Vazques, 81 F.4th 820, 822 (8th Cir. 2023). Because the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6056 Doc: 49 Filed: 02/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

denial of a discharge hearing continues an individual’s civil commitment, we find that we

have jurisdiction over this portion of the court’s order. See id. (finding that appellate court

“[had] jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291” and affirming denial of pro se motion for

discharge hearing under § 4247(h)); see also United States v. Maclaren, 866 F.3d 212, 216

(4th Cir. 2017) (considering denial of counseled motion for § 4247(h) discharge hearing).

Section 4247(h) provides:

Regardless of whether the director of the facility in which a person is committed has filed a certificate pursuant to the provisions of[, inter alia, § 4246(e),] counsel for the person or his legal guardian may, at any time during such person’s commitment, file with the court that ordered the commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether the person should be discharged from such facility . . .

Thus, as the district court found in denying Giffen’s pro se motion, § 4247(h) “plainly

permits only counsel or the legal guardian of the committed person to file a motion to

discharge.” Vazques, 81 F.4th at 822. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district

court’s order.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no

meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore deny Giffen’s pending motions on appeal,

dismiss the appeal in part, and affirm in part.

This court requires that counsel inform Giffen, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Giffen requests that a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Giffen. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6056 Doc: 49 Filed: 02/27/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART