United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. David Curtis, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Stephen Mcfadden, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Rodney Solomon, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Anthony Tibbs, Defendant-appellant, 856 F.2d 187 (4th Cir. 1988)

The appellants were convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under the Assimilative Crimes Act of the violation of several Virginia statutes. Their principal contention on appeal is that the federal court was without jurisdiction to try them for the state law offenses.

The appellants were prisoners housed in Lorton Reformatory in the Eastern District of Virginia. They were among a group of approximately twenty prisoners who engaged in a small riot. Armed with crude weapons, they invaded two dormitories and seriously assaulted two other inmates in violation of several Virginia statutes.

Lorton Reformatory is owned by the United States. The land was acquired with the consent of Virginia and is held under a cession of exclusive jurisdiction to the United States. See acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, 1901-1902, approved April 2, 1902, under which the United States was authorized to acquire such lands for public purposes and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

The land was acquired, and the facility constructed with the intention that it be used to house prisoners of the District of Columbia, and the administrative authority was transferred to the District of Columbia. The United States, however, remained the exclusive owner.

Under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 13 (West 1969), any violation of a state criminal statute is a federal criminal offense if committed upon a place as provided under Sec. 7 of that title. Section 7 applies broadly to places acquired by the United States with the consent of the legislature of the state in which the place is located when the land is acquired for the erection of certain enumerated public facilities, including "any other needful building." 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 7(3) (West 1969).

The Lorton Reformatory would clearly appear to be such a place, but the defendants contend that the cession of administrative responsibility to the District of Columbia makes the Assimilative Crimes Act inapplicable. Because the United States did not exercise administrative control of the facility that it owns, the defendants say the requirement of the "practical usage and dominion" test is not met.

They rely upon United States v. Erdos, 474 F.2d 157 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 876 (1973). But Erdos is inapplicable.

In Erdos, a murder had been committed in a building in a foreign country leased by the United States for use as an embassy. The United States sought to try the defendant in the Eastern District of Virginia upon the murder charge.

The United States was confronted with the fact that it was not the owner of the building in which the murder was committed. It was only a lessee, and with such rights as the laws of the foreign nation conferred upon lessees in such circumstances. We held that, nevertheless, there was federal jurisdiction, because, as a practical matter, the United States was exercising exclusive dominion over the embassy property.

It was never intended, however, that the practical usage and dominion test be applied to places owned by the United States and within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It was developed as a substitute for the usual rule that under the Assimilative Crimes Act the United States has jurisdiction to prosecute defendants for violation of state criminal laws committed on property acquired by the United States for its public purposes. No one ever supposed that the Assimilative Crimes Act incorporated the laws of Equatorial Guinea or other foreign nations. The question in Erdos was one of federal jurisdictional power, but it did not involve in any way a consideration of the Assimilative Crimes Act that assimilates laws of the states, but not those of foreign nations. In short, the use of Erdos is simply inapplicable here.

This court gets many appeals from convicts for offenses committed on the premises of Lorton Reformatory. Federal jurisdiction to try such offenses has not been questioned. Nothing suggests that the rule of Erdos should be applied when the offense has been committed on a place owned by the United States and within its territorial jurisdiction.

We find no error in the court's application of state law.

AFFIRMED.