Filed: Apr. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-2891 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. David Holiday lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: April 15, 2019 Filed: April 29, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. David Holiday appeals the district court’s1 order committing him under 18
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-2891 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. David Holiday lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: April 15, 2019 Filed: April 29, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. David Holiday appeals the district court’s1 order committing him under 18 ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-2891
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
David Holiday
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2019
Filed: April 29, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
David Holiday appeals the district court’s1 order committing him under 18
U.S.C. § 4245, which provides for hospitalization and treatment 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. Upon careful review of the
record--including the psychological evaluations of mental health professionals where
Holiday is presently confined for treatment, and of defense counsel’s independent
psychological examiner--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); United States v. Bean,
373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004)
(standard of review). We also conclude that Holiday’s pro se arguments offer no
basis for relief.
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-