United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 20-1092
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                   John Axelgard

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
                                 ____________

                              Submitted: July 7, 2020
                               Filed: July 13, 2020
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

     The district court 1 ordered John Axelgard involuntarily committed based on a
“mental disease or defect.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (authorizing commitment when

      1
      The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
releasing a person who suffers from a “mental disease or defect” would “create a
substantial risk of bodily injury . . . or serious damage to property”). On appeal,
Axelgard’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and challenges the factual
findings underlying the court’s commitment decision. Axelgard seeks unconditional
release in a pro se supplemental brief and requests new counsel.

       We conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly
erroneous. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (stating that a clear-and-convincing-evidence
standard applies in this type of commitment proceeding); United States v. Williams,

, 676 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing the standard of review on appeal).
Evidence in the record, including several expert opinions, established that Axelgard
has a mental illness, that his dangerous behavior is related to it, and that he would
likely discontinue treatment if he were released. See United States v. Ecker, 

, 970 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B,
deny Axelgard’s motion for new counsel, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                        ______________________________




Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Missouri.
                                     -2-