Filed: Aug. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1034 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Reginald Klaiber lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: August 28, 2018 Filed: August 31, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Reginald Klaiber appeals the district court’s1 order committing him u
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1034 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Reginald Klaiber lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: August 28, 2018 Filed: August 31, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Reginald Klaiber appeals the district court’s1 order committing him un..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1034
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Reginald Klaiber
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: August 28, 2018
Filed: August 31, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Reginald Klaiber appeals the district court’s1 order committing him under 18
U.S.C. § 4245 to the custody of the Attorney General for hospital care and treatment
until he no longer needs treatment or his prison sentence expires, whichever occurs
first. Upon careful review of the record, including the reports of two examining
psychologists who opined that Klaiber met the criteria for commitment, we conclude
the district court’s section 4245 finding was supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, and was not clearly erroneous. 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). The judgment of the district court
is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
1
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Missouri.
-2-