Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07452/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07452-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Newsome
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7452

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY NEWSOME,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02031-BR)

Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: May 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana Pereira, Research and

Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George

E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, David T. Huband, Special Assistant United

States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7452 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/27/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Newsome appeals the district court’s order

committing him to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). To hospitalize an inmate due for release

but suffering from mental disease or defect, “the court must find

both: 1) that he is suffering from a mental disease or defect, and

2) that as a result of his mental disease, his release would create

a substantial risk of harm to another or the property of another.”

United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). The

medical professionals who evaluated Newsome unanimously concluded

he suffers from schizophrenia and a cognitive disorder. Newsome

engaged in a pattern of increasingly aggressive behavior, including

an unprovoked assault of an elderly inmate and threatening to harm

or kill medical staff and inmates. Based on our review of the

record, the district court did not clearly err in its

determination. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-7452 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/27/2008 Pg: 2 of 2