US v. Anton Johnson, No. 12-6751 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6751 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. ANTON JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-hc-02045-BO) Submitted: April 23, 2013 Decided: June 13, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, G. Norman Acker, III, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anton Johnson, a District of Columbia ( D.C. ) Code offender in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ), appeals the district court s order committing him as a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 ( the Walsh Act ), 18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2006). Johnson argues that the Walsh Act, as applied to D.C. Code offenders in the custody of the BOP, violates the Equal Protection Clause. Walsh to Act rights. We Johnson conclude did not that the violate application his equal of the protection See United States v. Wooden, 693 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2012) (rejecting equal protection claim regarding application of Walsh Act to D.C. Code offender); United States v. Timms, 664 F.3d 436 (4th regarding Cir. 2012) application of (rejecting Walsh Act equal to protection individuals in claim BOP custody, but not to individuals who were not in custody); see generally Moss v. Clark, 886 F.2d 686 (4th Cir. 1989) (finding rational basis and, hence, no equal protection violation where D.C. prisoners in federal prisons did not accumulate good time credits at same rate for time served in federal prison as they would have facility). court. legal received if they had served sentences in D.C. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.