Opinion
21-2728
05-02-2022
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Adam Lamons Defendant-Appellant
Unpublished
Submitted: January 18, 2022
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Adam Lamons appeals the district court's order revoking a grant of conditional release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Lamons was first civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 in 2017. In 2018, the district court granted him conditional release under section 4246(e)(2), and imposed conditions, including that he comply with a mental health regimen, not possess any deadly weapons, not communicate any threats, and refrain from committing any new crimes. In October 2020, the government filed several notices of violation and a motion for revocation of conditional release under section 4246(f), alleging that Lamons had violated his conditions of release by, among other things, failing to take his prescribed medication, brandishing scissors and threatening to kill a liquor store employee, attempting to stab a police officer with the scissors, and being charged with a crime.
Lamons's statutory and constitutional arguments relating to the denial of his request to obtain an independent mental examination prior to the revocation of his conditional release are foreclosed by this court's precedent. See United States v. Spann, 984 F.3d 711 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 2655 (2021); see also United States v. O'Laughlin, 934 F.3d 840, 841 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review). The evidence developed during the revocation proceeding supports the district court's determination that revocation was warranted. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f); United States v. Franklin, 435 F.3d 885, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2006).
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.