Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01837/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01837-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1The 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.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1837

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Mark L. Reynolds, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 19, 2006

Filed: January 25, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark Reynolds appeals the district court’s1

 order committing him to the custody

of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, and we affirm.

Section 4246 provides for the indefinite hospitalization of a person who has

been committed to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)

Appellate Case: 05-1837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2006 Entry ID: 2001419
-2-

(concerning mental competency to stand trial) and who is found--after a hearing, by

clear and convincing evidence--to be suffering from a mental disease or defect as a

result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another

person or serious damage to property of another. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246. In this case,

the district court found that commitment under section 4246 was appropriate because

the experts who examined Reynolds unanimously believed he was suffering from a

mental disease or defect such that he would continue to engage in threatening behavior

if unconditionally released, based on Reynolds’s delusions and past threatening

behavior. We hold that this finding is not clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 677 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Steil, 916 F.2d 485,

487-88 (8th Cir. 1990) (dangerousness finding reviewed for clear error; hallucinations,

delusions, and threats enough to prove dangerousness even though individual had no

history of violent behavior toward others); cf. United States v. S.A., 129 F.3d 995,

1001 (8th Cir. 1997) (where individual had violent past, rejecting argument that vastly

improved recent behavior undermined dangerousness finding, and noting overt acts

of violence were not required to demonstrate dangerousness), cert. denied, 523 U.S.

1011 (1998); United States v. Ecker, 30 F.3d 966, 970 (8th Cir.) (upholding § 4246

commitment even though individual had not behaved violently for over 10 years),

cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1064 (1994).

In response to Reynolds’s assertions in a pro se supplemental brief, we note that

jurisdiction was proper in the Western District of Missouri, the district in which

Reynolds is confined, see 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a); that he had a statutory, as opposed to

a constitutional, right to counsel in his civil-commitment proceeding, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 4247(d); and that exculpatory evidence was not withheld from the district court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and deny Reynolds’s motion for new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2006 Entry ID: 2001419