From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Paden

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mar 2, 2009
312 F. App'x 830 (8th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 07-3871.

Submitted: February 5, 2009.

Filed: March 2, 2009.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

David R. Mercer, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.

Earl W. Brown III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.


[UNPUBLISHED]


Federal inmate Timothy Paden appeals the district court's order committing him under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, which provides for the hospitalization of an imprisoned person suffering from a mental disease or defect, until he no longer needs treatment or his prison sentence expires, whichever occurs first. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court's section 4245 finding was supported by the unrefuted opinions of the mental health professionals at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, and defense counsel's separate examiner, and that the finding was not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding Paden's statement at his hearing that he was fine. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (determination of mental illness and treatment need, and burden of proof); United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review); United States v. Eckerson, 299 F.3d 913, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (upholding commitment order based on opinion of prison hospital staff, despite inmate's denial of mental illness).

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. We also deny appellant's motion for appointment of new counsel.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Paden

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mar 2, 2009
312 F. App'x 830 (8th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

U.S. v. Paden

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy PADEN, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Mar 2, 2009

Citations

312 F. App'x 830 (8th Cir. 2009)