Filed: Oct. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-3291 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Richard Perales lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: October 15, 2020 Filed: October 21, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Richard Perales, who is civilly committed at the Federal Medical Center
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-3291 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Richard Perales lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield _ Submitted: October 15, 2020 Filed: October 21, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Richard Perales, who is civilly committed at the Federal Medical Center i..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-3291
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Richard Perales
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: October 15, 2020
Filed: October 21, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Richard Perales, who is civilly committed at the Federal Medical Center in
Rochester, Minnesota, appeals after the district court1 denied his pro se 18 U.S.C.
1
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
§ 4247(h) motion. He is represented by counsel on appeal, and counsel has moved
to withdraw.
The district court concluded that Perales was not authorized to file a pro se
§ 4247(h) motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (stating that counsel or a guardian may
move for a hearing to determine if a committed person should be discharged no
sooner than 180 days after the court determination that a commitment should
continue). Perales argues that he had a right to proceed pro se in a § 4247(h) action
under the Sixth Amendment or 28 U.S.C. § 1654. We conclude that these arguments
are foreclosed by our decision in United States v. O’Laughlin,
934 F.3d 840, 841 (8th
Cir. 2019) (concluding that the prohibition on self-representation under § 4247(h)
does not violate the Sixth Amendment or § 1654), cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 2535
(2020). To the extent Perales contends the district court’s decision denied him due
process, we hold that his due process rights have not been violated based on his
inability to represent himself. See United States v. LaFromboise,
836 F.2d 1149,
1151-52 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246-4247 satisfy due process
even though § 4247(h) does not permit an acquittee to represent himself).
Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw from this appeal and affirm. See 8th
Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Missouri.
-2-