2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-3-2006 

# U SA v . S t ewar t
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2732

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . S t ewar t " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 673. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/673H on. W i l l i am H
. Y ohn J r . , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge for * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 2732

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AN THO NY STEWA RT,

A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D
. C
. C r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 772 (H on orabl e W i l l i am H
. W al l s)

A r gued A pr i l 26, 2006 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudge , a n d Y O H N , D is tr i ct Judge *

### 2 ( Fi l ed: J ul y3, 2006 ) A N D R E A D . B E R G M A N , 

### ESQUI RE ( AR GUE D) O ffi ce of t he Feder al Publ i c D efe ndant 22 Sout h C l i nt on A venue S tat ion P laza # 4 , 4 th F loo r T r ent on, N ew J er s ey08609 C ouns el f orAppel l ant C A R O L IN E A . S A D L O W S K I, 

### ESQUI RE ( AR GUE D) G E O R G E S . L E O N E , 

### ESQUI RE O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet , R oom 700 N ew ark, N ew J er s ey07102 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

Y O H N , D is tr i ct

Judge

. I n 2004, A nt hony St ew ar t w as found not gui l t ybyr eas on o f in sa n ityf

o r ra n d o m ly sta b b in g a p o st-o f f ice c u sto m e r in H arr i s o n , N ew J er s ey . A ta s ubs equenthear i ng, t he D i s t r i ct C our tcom m it ted S t ew ar tt o t he cus t odyof the U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney G ener al beca us e St ew ar tfai l ed t o pr ove bycl earand c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t h is rele a se in to th e c o m m u n ity“ w o u ld

### 3 notcr eat e a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of bodi l y i nj ur y t o anotherper s on or s e r i o u s d a m a g e to th e p ro p e rt yo f a n o th e r” u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 3 4 2 (e). S tew art ap p ea ls, co n tend ing that the D istri ct C o u rt e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s r e l e a s e . F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m. I. B or n i n 1961, St ew ar t ’ s adul tl i fe ha s been punc tuat ed by a hi s t or yof ps y chi atr i c i l l nes s and cr i m i nal behavi or . A l t hough St ew ar tobt ai ned a G ener al E ducat i on D egr ee aft er l eavi ng hi gh s c h o o l i n th e e l e v e n t h g r a d e , S t e wa r tb e g a n t o h a v e p r o b l e ms w ith th e law a t th e a g e o f tw e n tyw h e n h e w a s c o n v icte d in sta te cour tof pos s es s i on of s t ol en pr oper t y . T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hat S t ew art ’s m ental health als o b egan t o d et eri orat e i n hi s tw enti es, r es ul t i ng i n s eve ral p sy ch ia t r i c hos pi t al i zat i ons for s chi zophr eni a. T hes e pr ob le m s corr es ponded w i t h a gr adual es cal at i on i n St ew ar t ’ s cr i m i nal behavi or , fr om s hopl i ft i ng and resist ing arrest to l arc en y an d b u rglary

. A lth o u g h S tew art r ece i ved ant i ps y chot i c medi cat i on w hi l e hos pi t al i zed or in c a rc e ra ted , S tew a rt typ ica llyd id n o t co m p lyw ith h is m edi cat i on r egi m en pos t r el eas e. A . T he U nderl y i ng O f f ens e & C ri m i nal T ri al O n A pr i l 29, 1999, St ew ar tw as i n a H arr i s on, N ew J er s eypos toffi ce w hen he r andoml yappr o ac hed cus t om er E l i zabe t h H i ggi ns fr om behi nd and s t abbed he ri n t he bac k of t he hea d w i t h a L eatherm an bl ade. St ew ar tt hen ca l m l ytur ned ar ound and w al ked out. H i ggi ns s uffe r ed a 10- cent i m et erU nder 18 U
. S. C
. § 4241( b) , pr i ort o a hea r i ng t o det erm i ne 1 c o m p e ten c yb e f

o re trial, “ th e c o u rt m a y o rd e r th a t a p sy c h iatric or p sy chol ogi cal exami nat i on of the def endantbe conduc t ed, and thata ps y chi atr i c orpsy chol ogi cal r epor tbe fi l ed w i t h t he c o u rt .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 2 4 1 (d ) p ro v id e s th a t: 2 I f , a f t e rt h e h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r tf i n d s b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatt he def endant i s pr es ent l ys uffe r i n g fr om a ment al di s eas e or defe ctr ender i ng hi m m ent al l yi ncompet entt o t he ex tent that h e is u n ab le t o u n d e rs tan d the n ature



### 4 l ace r at i on t o t he l ow erback of herhead. St ew ar tw as appr ehende d t hat s ame daya s hor tdi s t ance fr om t he pos toffi ce. St ew ar tw as i ni t i al l ychar ged i n H uds on C ount ySuper i or C our tand det ai ned at var i ous fac i l i t i es for over a y ear . H e w as t r ans ferr ed t o fe d era l cus t odyon J une 12, 2000, and cha r ged w ith k n o w inglycom m i tt i n g a n a ss a u lt res u lti n g in se rio u s b o d ily in ju ryw ith in th e ter rito ria l ju risd ictio n o f th e U n ited S tate s, in vi o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S. C. § 1 1 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) a n d 2
. St ew ar t w as t empora r i l y comm i t t ed for a ment al heal t h eval uat i on pur s uant to 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 2 4 1 (b ). E v a lu a tio n s b ym e n tal h e a lth 1 pr ofes s i o n al s concl uded thatSt ew ar tw as notcompet entt o s t and t r i al pur s uant t o 18 U
. S. C
. § 4241( d)

. A s a r es ul t , St ew ar tw as comm i t t ed t o t he A t t or ney G ener al ' s cus t odyon J anuary17, 2 0 0 1 p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 2 4 1 (d)(1 ). 2a n d c o n se q u e n c e s o f th e p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st h im o r to a ss ist p ro p e rly in h is d e f e n se , the c o u rt sh a ll comm i tt he def

endantt o t he cus t odyof the A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l sh a ll hos pi t al i ze the def

endantfortrea tm enti n a s ui t a b l e f

a c i l i t y. . . f

o rs u c h a r e a s o n a b l e p er i od o f ti m e, no t t o ex ce ed fo u r m o n ths, as is ne ce ssary t o det erm i ne w hether ther e i s a s ubs t ant i al p ro b a b ili tyth a t in th e f o re se e a b le f

u tu r e h e w ill at t ai n t he ca paci t yt o perm i tt he tr i al t o pr ocee d. 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 2 4 2 (a ) sta te s th a t if th e d e f e n d a n t in ten d s to 3 r el yon t he def

ens e of i ns ani t y , t he courtm us tor der“a



### 5 A ft erappr oxi m at el y six m ont hs of tr eatm entatFeder al M edi cal C ent er( “FM C ”) D evens i n M as s achus et t s , St e wartw as evaluat ed b y T ho m as P at enau de, P h. D
. , a forensi c psy cho l og i st atFM C D ev en s. I n acc or dance w i t h t hateval uat i on, on S e p tem b e r 4 , 2 0 0 1 , S tew a rt w a s f o u n d c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial. H o w e v e r, S tew a rt w a s re lea se d to P a ss a ic C o u n tyJa il, w here h is m ent al s t at e aga i n det er i or at ed. I n February 2002, St ew ar tw as d e ter m in e d to b e in c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial a n d re c o m m itt e d to F M C D e v e n s . O n Ju ly2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , th e C o u rt o rd e re d a p sy c h iatric exami nat i on t o det erm i ne w hether St ew ar t s uffe r ed fr om m ent al i l l nes s att he t i m e of the A pr i l 1999 o ff en se p ur s uantt o 18 U
. S
. C
. § 4 2 4 2
. D r. P aten au d e a n d D r. C athe ri n e M
. B arb er, 3ps y chi atr i c or p sy chol ogi cal exami nat i on of the def endantbe conduct ed, and thata ps y chi atr i c or psy chol ogi cal r epor tbe fi l ed w i t h t he court , pur s uant t o t he pr ovi s i ons of s ect i on 4247( b) and ( c)

. ” Sect i ons 4247( b) and ( c) pr o v ide t he r equi r ed s t andar ds for psy chol ogi cal exami nat i ons . A s i s t he ca s e her e, i f an exam i nati on i s con du ct ed pursuant t o § 42 42 , t he ex am i ner m ust det erm i ne “w hethert he per s on w as i ns ane a tt he ti m e of the o ff en se c h arg ed

. ” 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 2 4 7 (c)(4)(B ). 18 U
. S.C
. § 4243 s et s outt he r equi r ement s for 4 h o sp italiz a tio n o f

a p e rso n f

o u n d n o t g u iltyb yre a so n o f in sa n ity att he t i m e of the off

ens e c h arg ed

. I f a pe r s on i s found not g u iltyb yre a so n o f

in sa n ity , the c o u rt m u st h o ld a h e a rin g to det erm i ne w hethert he i ndi vi dual m us tbe comm i t t ed t o a 

### 6 St ew ar t ' s r et ai ned p sy chol ogi s t , bot h concl uded w i t h a r eas onabl e degr ee of

ps y chol ogi cal cert ai nt yt hat att he t i m e of t he o ffen se Stew artw as s u fferi ng from severe m ental dis ease and, as a r es ul t , w as unabl e t o appr eci at e the natur e, qual i t y , and w r ongful nes s of hi s act i ons . O n O ct ober24, 2004, a s t i pul at ed fac tt r i al w as conduct ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tand St ew ar tw as f o u n d n o t g u il ty b y rea so n o f i n san ity p u rsua n t to 18 U
. S
. C . § 4 2 4 2 (b )( 3 ). B . R i s k A s s es s m ent P anel R eport T he C our ts ubs equent l yor der ed a ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on of St e w a r tbya pa ne l of medi c a l pe r s on ne l a tFM C D e ve ns , pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. §§ 42 43 (a) , (b) , and 42 47 (b)

. T he R i sk 4s ui t abl e fa ci l i t yunt i l he i s el i gi bl e forr el eas e pur s uantt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 4243( e)

. 18 U
. S. C
. § 4243( a)

. Pr i ort o t he hea r i ng, t he cour tm us tor der a psy chi atr i c or ps y chol ogi cal exami nat i on of the d ef en d an t. 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 2 4 3 (b).



### 7 A s s es s m en t Panel R epor t , fi l ed on D ece m ber30, 2004, e x a m in e d S te w a r t’s p sy c h iatric a n d c rim in a l h isto ry , h is t r eatm entatFM C D evens , and hi s fu tur e r i s k of vi ol ent r eci di vi s m . A ccor di ng t o t he pane l , St ew ar ts uffe r s fr om d iso rg a n ize d p e rso n a lityp a ra n o id s c h iz o p h r e n ia , a n d c a n e x h ib it “gr andi os i t y[and] hyper -re l i gi os i t y , pos s i bl yof del us i onal pr opor t i ons . ” A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. vol

. I I , at27 ( R i s k A s s es s m ent Panel R eport , N ov, 30, 2004)

. D ur i ng one exa m i nat i on, for exam ple, S t ew artst at ed “h e i s ‘A llah ’ and t hat he i s the m ost gr aci ous , m os tcompass i onat e, and mostw or t hy

. ” I d. Fur t herm or e, t he pane l f o und t hati f i m pr oper l ym edi cat ed, St ew ar t ’ s m ent al i l l nes s can i m pact and i m pai rhi s j udgm ent , as demonst r at ed by hi s pas tcr i m i nal hi s t or yand ac t s of vi ol ence . Forexampl e, w hi l e atFM C D evens , Stew art ass aul t ed a C or r ect i onal O ff

ic erand att empt ed t o as s aul tt he C hi ef Psy chi atr i s ton N ovember14, 2002. H ow ever , St ew art
“ re sp o n d e d w e ll t o tre a tm e n t,” a n d a f ter a n in c re a se in h is m edi cat i on, t he pane l r epor t ed h e co m m i t t ed no furt her v io le n c e . I

d. S tew a rt a d v a n c e d th ro u g h th e m e n tal h e a lth u n it s y s t em and w as eventual l yabl e t o l i ve i n t he l eas tr es t r i ct i ve sett i ng. T he pane l found thati n w hi l e i n t he hi ghl ys t ructur ed pr i s o n en v ir o n m en t, S tew art w as c o m p li an t w ith h is m ed icati on,

### 8 at t ended al l of hi s ps y chi atr i c appoi nt m ent s , and appe ar ed “t o be athi s bas el i ne. ” Id

. at29. T he p an el al s o conduct ed a s er i es of ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i ons t o det erm i ne St ew ar t ’ s ri sk forfutur e vi ol ent beh avior

. T he res ult s indi cat ed S t ew artw as ata “m od erat e ri sk f o r v io len t b e h a v io r,” w ith a 1 7 % c h a n c e h e w ill e n g a g e in futur e act s of vi ol ence w i t hi n t he nexts even y ear s , and a 31% chanc e he w i l l engage i n futur e ac t s of vi ol ence w i t hi n t he next te n y e a rs . Id

. at 30 -31
. A cc o rdin g to the re p o rt , S tew art’s hi s t o r yo f

v i o l e n c e , h i s s e r i o u s me n t a l i l l n e s s , a n d h i s l i mi t ed insigh t i n to h is m en tal il lnes s inc rea sed h is r isk f o r fu ture v io len c e , “e sp e c iallyif h e b e c o m e s n o n c o m p lian t in tak in g h is pr es cr i bed psy chotr opi c medi cat i on. ” I d. H ow ever , t he pane l c o n c lu d e d th a t if S tew a rt re m a in e d “ p ro p e rly m e d ica ted a n d in a s tructur ed and supe r vi s ed envi r onm ent , he i s nota dange r ous i ndi vi dual

. ” I

d. at32- 33. C . The 18 U . S. C . § 4 24 3 H e ar i ng O n S te w a rt ’s m o tio n , a h e a ri n g p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 4243( c) w as conduct ed on M ay 3, 2005 t o det erm i ne w hetherhe s h o u l d b e r e l e a s e d f

r o m c u s t o d y . I n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h 1 8 U. S
. C. § 4243( d) , S te w ar thad “the bur den of pr ovi ng bycl earand conv i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t h i s r e l e a s e wou l d n o t c r e a t e a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of bodi l yi nj ur yt o an o t herper s on ors er i ous damage t o t he pro p ertyof anotherdue t o a pr es entm ent alAt a § 4 2 4 3 ( c ) h e a r i n g , a p e r s o n , f o u n d n o t g u i l t yonl yby 5 re a so n o f

in sa n ityo f

a n o f f e n se in v o lv in g b o d ilyin ju ryto anotherper s on, “h as the burde n of pr ovi ng bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hathi s r el eas e w oul d not cre ate a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of bodi l yi nj ur yt o an o t herper s on ors er i ous damage t o t he pr oper t yof an o ther due t o a pr es entm ent al di s eas e ordefe ct
. ” 28 U
. S. C
. § 4243( d)

. I f the courtfi nds s uch a s how i ng has notbeen made, the cour tm us tcomm i tt he i ndi vi dual t o t he cus t odyof the A t t or neyG ener al for hos pi t al i zat i on i n an appr opr i at e fe der al –or , w her e ava il ab le , s t at e–fa ci l i t yunt i l t he i ndi vi dual ’ s me d i c a l c o n di t i on i s s uch that hi s r el eas e, w i t h orw it houtcondi t i ons , w oul d notcr eat e a su b stan ti al ri sk o f bo d il y injury to an o ther. 18 U
. S
. C
. § 4 2 4 3 (e). T h e d ire c to r o f

th e f a c ili tya t w h ich th e in d iv id u a l is h o sp it ali zed i s resp o n sible fo r an n u al rev iew s o f th e ind ividu al’s need f orhos pi t al i zat i on, and a c er t i fi cat i on fr om t he di r e c t o rt hat r el eas e i s appr opr i at e mayt r i ggerr el eas e at a nyt i m e af t er comm i t m ent
. 18 U
. S. C
. § 4243( f)

. T he co ur tm us tt hen or der t he per s on di s char ged or , on m ot i on of the governm ent , hol d a h e a rin g a n d d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e s ta n d a rd f o r re lea se is m e t. 18 U
. S. C
. § 4243( f)

. L i kew i s e, aft er 180 day s , couns el fort he hos pi t al i zed ind i vi dual m ayr eques ta hea r i ng r egar di ng t he ind ividu al’s eli g ibil ityfo r release

. 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 2 4 7 (h). 

### 9 disease ordefe ct
. ” I f St ew ar tw as s ucce s s ful , bot h par t i es 5 agr eed thatSt ew ar t ’s re l eas e w as s ubj ectt o no cour t
- i m pos ed condi t i ons w hat s oever , beca us e the s t atut e does notperm itt he di s t r i ctcour tt o or dera condi t i onal r el ease at a § 4243( c)W h il e § 42 4 3 (f) d o es au tho ri ze the d istri ct co u rtto o rde r a 6 c o n d i t i o n a l r e l e a s e , t h a ts u b s e c t i o n i s i m p l i c a t e d o n l y aft er an i ndi vi dual has been c om m i t t ed and hospi t al i zed pur s uantt o § 4 243( e)

. I n U

ni t ed Stat es v. B aker , t he F ou rth C i rcui taptl y sum m ari zed the differ ence b et w een the t w o sect i on s: Subse ct i on ( e) i s noti n anyw ayan i m pl i ci tgr ant o f d isc re tio n a rya u th o rityto th e d istric t co u rt to or dera condi t i onal r el eas e even af t era fi ndi ng t hatt he def

endantdoes notpos e the r i s k i dent i fi ed byt he s t atut e. R ather , t he s ubs ect i on d ir ec t s t he cour t to com m i tt he i ns ani t yacqui t t ee t o t he c u sto d y o f th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l sh o u ld h e f a il t o m ee t th e b u rd e n req u ir ed to justi fyrelease

. In contr as t , s ubs ect i on ( f) , w hi ch by i t s t erm s appl i es onl yt o i ns ani t yacqui t t ees w ho have be en hos pi t al i zed pur s uantt o an ea r l i ers ubs ect i on ( e) hear i n g a n d f

i n d i n g , d o e s e x p l i c i t l yp r o v i d e f or t he t hi r d al t ernat i ve t o ful l r el eas e and c ont i nued com m i t m ent - - condit i on al rel ease. T he co ntr ast betw een the expr es s l an g u age of s ubs ect i ons ( e) and ( f) cl ear l ydemon str at es t hatC ongr es s knew h o w to a u th o riz e c o n d iti o n a l re lea se o f a n ins a n ity acqui t t ee w hen i ts o des i r ed. T he abse nce of s uch lan g u a g e f

ro m su b se c tio n ( e ), th e re f o re , is 

### 10 hear i ng. U nder § 4243( e) , w hi ch governs t he di s pos i t i on of a § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a rin g , a d istric t co u rt is o n lyg ra n ted a u th o rityto e i t h e rc o m m i tt h e d e f

e n d a n to rr e l e a s e h i m u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y. 6compel l i ng e v i d e nce of an abs ence of corr es pondi ng author i t y . If f ur t herevi dence of C o n g re ss ’ in ten t in th is se c tio n w e re n e e d e d , itis pr ovi ded byt he pl ai n t extof s ubs ect i on ( g) , w hi ch s et s for t h t he pr ocedur es fort he r evoca t i on of condi t i onal di s char ges , and expr es s l yr efe r ence s condi t i onal r el eas e unders u b s e c t i on ( f) butm akes no refer ence a tal l t o such a q u al i fi ed rel ease u n d e r s u b s e c tio n (e ). 1 5 5 F
. 3 d at 39 5 (cit ati o n o m itted). A ccor di ng t o T ol ent i no’ s t es t i m ony , I C M S is a ref err al 7 pr ogr am t hatas s i sts i ndi vi dual s w i t h m ent al i l l nes s i n fi ndi ng s oci al , r ecr eat i onal , ps y chi atr i c, and m edi cal s ervi ces i n U ni on C o u n ty, N e w J e rs e y . 

### 11 U ni t ed Stat es v. B aker , 1 5 5 F .3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 4 -9 5 (4 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). S tew art pr ese n ted testi m o n yfro m three w itn esse s: D r. D enn i s B ecott e, C hief Fo rensi c P sy cho l og i statF M C D even s, C h e ry l T o len tin o , a c lin ica l tea m lea d e r f o r th e U n io n C o u n ty I n t e g r a t e d Ca s e M a n a g e me n tSe r v i c e s ( “ I CM S” ) , a n d W a n da 7 M cN eil , S tew art’s co u sin. B ec o tt e testi fied that w h il e S tew art had i m pr oved atFM C D evens , St ew ar t ’ s r i s k of futur e vi o le nt behavi orw as cr i t i cal ly d epende nton St ew ar t ’ s m edi cat i on reg im en an d li v ing en v ir o n m en t. B ec o tt e stated that S tew art’s s t ab i l i t y h a d i mpr o v e d o v e r t h e p a s t t wo a n d a h a l f y e ar s and t hatSt ew ar thad “r ece nt l y ” ac know l edged hi s m ent al i l l nes s and

### 12 hi s need t o s t ayon m edi cat i on. B ecott e al so tes t i fi ed that St ew ar t ’ s pr ognos i s w as good, hi s m o d er at e r i s k of vi ol ent reci divi sm w as r el at i vely po si t i ve, and he curr entl y did not pose a su b sta n ti a l risk o f

d a n g e r to th e p u b lic. H o w e v e r, B e c o tte cl ear l yexpr es s ed thatSt ew ar t ’ s m edi cat i on r egi m en w as cruci al to h is sta b ili ty
. W ith o u t tak in g h is re q u ire d m e d ica tio n , B e c o tte t es t i fi ed t hat St ew ar t ’ s r i s k of engagi ng i n vi ol ent behavi or s ubs t ant i al l yi ncr eas ed. Fur t herm or e, St ew ar t ’ s hi s t or yof p o str elea se m ed icati o n n o n co m p lian ce ind icated that S tew art n e e d e d a stru c tu re d a n d su p e rv ise d e n v iro n m e n t to g iv e h im “the b est ch an ce o f su cc ess.” A p p ell an t’ s A p p . v o l. II, at 76 (§ 4 2 4 3 (c ) H e a rin g T r., M a y3 , 2 0 0 5 ). A c c o rd in g to B e c o tte, th is envi r onm entw oul d ens ur e thatSt ew ar tr ece i ved hi s m edi cat i on b iw e e k ly , atte n d e d w e e k lym e e tin g s w it h m e n tal h e a lth p ro f e ss io n a ls w h o w o u ld m o n ito r h is ill n e ss , an d p a rticip a ted in ongoi ng couns el i ng t her apy . T hi s t ype of oversi g h tw as a v a ilab le th ro u g h a c o m m u n ityo u tp a tien t p ro g ra m , B e c o tte c o n c lu d e d , b u t n o t p o s s ib le if S te w a rt w a s liv in g o n h is o w n . B ec aus e St ew ar t ’ s r el eas e under§ 4243( e) w oul d be su b ject t o n o co u rt -i m p o s ed co n d it ion s w h atso ev er, Stew art’s a tto rn e y p re se n ted e v id e n c e th a t th e re w o u ld b e “ sa f e g u a rd s” in p l a c e t o p r o v i d e St e wartwi t h a s t ru c tu r e d a n d s u p er vi s ed e n v ir o n m e n t. Id

. at119
. H ow ever , t he w i t nes s es ’ t es t i m ony rai sed do ub t s as t o the l evel of structure a n d su p po rtt hese r es our ces w oul d t rul y pr ovi de. W hi l e T ol ent i no t es t i fi ed that IC M S c o u ld p ro v id e w e e k lym e n tal h e a lth v isits f o r S tew a rt, a rra n g e f o r his b iw e e k ly m e d ica tio n s, a n d w o u ld m a k e re f e rra ls

### 13 to o th e r a g e n c ies a s a p p ro p ria te, T o len tin o a g re e d th a t IC M S is a c o m p lete lyv o lu n tar y p ro g ra m a n d S tew a rt c o u ld ter m in a te its s e r v i c e s a ta n yt i me . I n a d d i t i o n , To l e n t i n o a d mi t t e d t h a tI CM S had notas s es s ed S t ew ar t , coor di nat ed any pl ans forhi s r el eas e, or di scussed his rel ease w i t h p ers on nel at F M C D even s. Fur t herm or e, w hi l e M c Nei l t e s t i fi ed thats he cons ent ed t o l et t i ng S t ew art l i ve in her hom e, t hat s he is com fort able w i t h h i s i l l ness, an d that s h e w o u ld tak e the n ec essa rystep s to e n su re S tew art r ece i ved ade quat e ca r e, s he admi t t ed t hat s he w or ked everyday f ro m 8 :3 0 a .m . to 5 :0 0 p .m ., d u rin g w h ich tim e S tew a rt w o u ld be en t i rel yun supervi se d . M c N ei l al so agreed thatshe m ust d ev o te su b stan ti al att en ti o n to h er f o u r ch il d ren , all o f w h o m are se v e n tee n y e a rs o f

a g e o r y o u n g e r. F in a lly , alth o u g h B e c o tte s t at ed thatI C M S “l ooks l i ke a very good s ervi ce, as s um i ng t hat t h e ywi l l d o i t , ” h e a d mi t t e d t h a th e o n l yl e a r n e d a b o u tt h e I CM S p ro g ra m f

ro m re a d in g a b ro c h u re th a t m o rn in g . Id. at 74. N e ith e r h e n o r a n y o n e o n th e p a n e l ev e r ta lk e d w ith r epr es ent at i ves atI C M S ori nt ervi ew ed M cN ei l

. A l t ho u g h he w as s at i s fi ed w i th St ew ar t ’ s pl an bec aus e i t“s ounds l i ke a condi t i onal r el eas e pl an thatw e have engi neer ed for m anyot her cas es t hathave be en s ucce s s ful , ” B ecott e admi t t ed that S t ew art ’s plan w as “obv i ou sl yno ta t ypical con dit i on of rel ease pl an w hi ch w e w or k on and pr es ent t o t he cour t
. T her e i s goi ng t o be no over s i ghtors upervi s i on of M r . St ew ar t i f he i s r el eas ed i nt o t he comm uni t y and our i nvol vementw i t h the ca s e w oul d be t erm i nat ed. ” Id

. a t 8 0 -8 1 , 6 1
.

### 14 A t th e c o n clus ion o f th is he aring , the D istri ct C o u rt d e n ied S tew a rt’s r e lea se p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 2 4 3 (e ). W h ile obs ervi ng t hatSt ew ar tw as doi ng aboutas w el l as coul d be ex p ec ted g iven h is m en tal il lnes s, the C o u rtfo u n d that S tew art’s m e n tal h e a lth e v a lu a tio n s in d ica ted th a t h e is s til l at a m o d e ra te r i s k for vi ol entbehavi orand thatt hi s r i s k i ncr eas es i f he i s not properl y m edicat ed. T he C ou rt determ i ned t hat t hese f a c tors , c o u p led w ith S tew a rt’s o n lyre c e n t ac k n o w led g m e n t o f h is il lnes s, p o sed fo rm idab le ob sta cles to re lease

. S tew art’s p ro p o se d “ sa f

e g u a rd s,” a c c o rd in g to th e C o u rt, d id n o t el im in a te the d an g er h e o therw ise p o sed

. T h e C o u rt n o ted th at M cN eil ’s t e s t i mo n y r e v e a l e d s h e c o u l d n o t p r o v i d e a n yda yt i me s upervi s i on and i tw as unknow n w hatSt ew ar tw oul d do dur i ng t hos e hour s . N ordi d t he C our thave a nyi nfor m at i on r egar di ng IC M S ’s h isto ry , it s tra c k re c o rd , o r th e sp e c if ic p ro g ra m s in w hi ch St ew ar tw oul d be enr ol l ed upon hi s r el eas e. R ather , t he C our tfound thatSt ew ar tw oul d under go a dr as t i c change fr om t he contr ol l ed condi t i ons at FM C D evens t o an en v ir o nm ent w ith little o r n o s u p e rv isio n a n d , co n se q u e n tly , h e c o u ld pot ent i al l ydecompens at e and pos e a gr eat d an gert o ot her p e o p le a n d p ro p e rty . W ith o u t d e m o n s tra tin g a n a d e q u a te re lea se p ro g ra m , the C o u r t f o u n d th a t S tew a rt h a d f a iled to sh o w , b yc lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e , tha t h is re lea se w o u ld notcr eat e a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of bodi l yi nj ur yt o anotherper s on or s er i ous damage t o t he prope r t y of anot herand ther efor e deni ed his rel ease. S t ew artno w app eal s.

### 15 II
. As t h i s i s a c a s e o f

f i r s ti mp r e s s i o n i n t h i s Ci r c u i t , we b e g in b yd e ter m in in g w h e th e r w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to h e a r th is a p p e a l. Lazy O i l C o. v. W i t co C or p. , 1 6 6 F
. 3 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ) (“ W e h a v e a n in h e re n t o b lig a tio n to e n su re th a t w e o n ly deci de thos e ca s es forw hi ch ther e i s a pr opergr ound for appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. ”)

. Pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291, w e have j ur i s di ct i on overfi nal or der s of the di s t r i ct cour t s . A fi nal or der “t erm i nat es t he l i t i gat i on betw een the par t i es on t he m er i t s of the cas e and l eave s not hi ng t o be done butt o enfor ce byexec ut i on w hat has been de t erm i ned. ” D ot z el v. A s hbr i dge , 438 F. 3d 320, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng St

. Louis , I r on Mount ai n & S. Ry. C o. v. S. E xpr es s C o. , 1 0 8 U
. S
. 2 4 , 2 8 -29 (18 8 3 )). D ur i ng a § 4243( c) hear i ng, a di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i nes w hetheran ind ividua l , found notgui l t ys ol el ybyr eas on of i nsanity , has prov en hi s rel ease do es not cr eat e a subst anti al ri sk of dange rt o s oci ety . B as ed o n t hi s fac t
- fi ndi ng, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt c o n c lu s iv e lyd e ter m in e s a n in d iv id u a l’s p re se n t rig h t to l i ber t y . 18 U
. S. C
. § 4243( e)

. W e j oi n t he Fi fth, E i ght h, and E l eventh C i r cui t s and hol d t hat a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s § 4243( e) or der comm i t t i ng an i n d i v i d u a l t o th e A t t or neyG ener al ’ s cus t odyaft er hi s acqui t t al byr eas on of i n s ani t yi s an appe al abl e fi nal or der u n d e r § 1 2 9 1
. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 1 9 F .3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 4 n .1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); U

nited St ates v. C l ark , 8 9 3 F .2 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 0 n .3 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

al l ace , 845 F. 2d 1471, 1472 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); s ee als o 1 5 B Ch a r l e s A l a n W r i g h t , Ar t h u rB. M ille r, E d w a rd H . C o o p e r, Federal P ra c ti ce an d P rocedu re §T he Tent h C ir cu it h as al s o as s um ed j ur i s di ct i on overs uch 8 a p p e a ls w ith o u t e x p lic itly a d d re s s in g th e is s u e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. G i l

gert , 3 1 4 F
. 3 d 5 0 6 , 5 0 8 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ).



### 16 3 9 1 8 .7 (2 d e d . 1 9 9 2 ) (“ A n o r d e r c o m m itt in g th e d e f e n d a n t to th e c u sto d yo f

th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l f o llo w in g a c q u itt a l so lely b yrea so n o f in san ityis an ap p ea lable f inal o rde r. ”). 8 W e fi nd t his con cl usi on w arr an ted becau se “m ostpo st j ud g m en t or der s ar e fi nal deci s i ons w i t hi n t he ambi tof 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a s lo n g a s th e d istric t co u rt h a s c o m p lete ly d ispos ed of the mat t er . ” O hntr up v. F i r ear m s C tr . , I nc. , 802 F. 2d 676, 678 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( quot i ng Spor tm ar t , I nc. v. W olver i ne W

or ld W i de, I nc. , 6 0 1 F
. 2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 6 (7th C ir

. 1 9 7 9 )). H er e, t he j udgm ent of acqui t t al s ol el y byr eas on of i ns ani t yhas c o n c lu s iv e ly re s o lv e d th e u n d e rl y in g c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g s . See Sat t az ahn v. P enns

ylvani a, 5 3 7 U
. S
. 1 0 1 , 1 2 0 (20 0 3 ) (a j udgm entof ac qui t t al concl us i vel yr e s o l v es t he tr i al pr ocee di ngs and cons t i tut es a fi nal j udgm ent )

. Fur t herm or e, t he D i s t ri ct C our thas compl et el ydi s pos ed of the § 4 243( e) comm i t m ent m a tter. T h e f

a c t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m a y su b se q u e n tlyh o ld anotherhear i ng under§§ 4243( f) or4247( h) , and ei t her di s char ge orcont i nu e t o hos pi t al i ze the i ndi vi dual , does not re n d e r t h e in itia l § 4 2 4 3 (e ) c o m m itm e n t o rd e r n o n f in a l. S ee g e n e r a l l y R e u t e rs , L td

. v . FCC , 7 8 1 F
. 2 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 7 (D

. C
. C ir

. 1986) ( s t at i ng t hat “fi nal or der s ar e notl i m i t ed t o t he l as tor der i s s ued i n a pr ocee di ng, ” butm us t “i m pos e an obl i gat i on, deny a ri g h t o r fix so m e l eg al relati o n sh ip”) (qu o tat ion o m itted).A ppel l ee a r gues t hatt he comm i t m entorde r is n o t a fi nal 9 or der and i s t her efor e onl y appea l abl e undert he col l at er al or der d o c trin e . T h e c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e a p p lies to “ th a t s m a ll cl as s [of non- fi nal or der s ] w hi ch fi nal l ydet erm i ne cl ai m s of r i ghts epar abl e fr om , an d col l at er al t o, r i ght s as s er t ed i n t he act i on, t oo i m por t antt o be deni ed r evi ew and t oo i ndepende nt of the ca us e i t s el f to requi r e thatappel l at e cons i der at i on be d e f e r r e d u n t i l t h e who l e c a s e i s a d j u d i c a t e d

. ” C o h en v. B enefi ci al I

nd us. L oa n C orp . , 3 3 7 U
. S
. 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 -47 (19 4 9 ); D ot z el , 438 F. 3d at 323. A s w e have det erm i ned tha t t he comm i t m entor deri s a fi nal or ders ubj ectt o appea l , t her e i s no 

### 17 H e re , the o u tco m e o f

th e se su b se q u e n t h e a rin g s is e n tirely in d e p e n d e n t o f

a n d a p a rt f

ro m th e § 4 2 4 3 (e ) c o m m itm e n t. R ather , t he comm i t m ent or der

- - s peci fi cal l y , t he det erm i nat i on t h a ta n i n d i v i d u a l ’ s r e l eas e atthe t i m e of the com m i tm ent hear i ngp o se s a su b sta n tial risk o f d a n g e r -- im m e d iate lya f f e c ts t he i ndi vi dual ’ s r igh t s and i s neverr eeva l uat ed. “N ot hi ng fur therr emai ns t o be done i n t he di s t r i ct cour tand the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

c o m m itm e n t r e q u ir e th a t a p p e a l b e a v a ila b le .” W ri g h t e t a l., s upr a § 3 9 1 8 .7 ; s ee gener al l y Shor eham

- W

adi ng R iver C en t. Sch

. D ist

. v. U

. S

. N u clea r R eg u latory C o m m ’n , 931 F. 2d 102, 105 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1991) (find ing an or dert hatw as i m m edi at el yenfor ceabl e and a ffe ct ed the r i ght s of the part i es r equi r ed a f

i ndi ng of fi nal i ty , even i f m ad e in t he cour s e of cont i nui ng pr ocee di ngs )

. T her efor e, t hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on o v e r t h is f

in a l o rd e r o f

c o m m i t m e n t a c c o rd in g to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291. 9need t o det erm i ne w hether t he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne w oul d be ap p li ca b le, if i t w ere n o t a fina l ord er. 

### 18 III . W e ar e next confr ont ed w i t h t he appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew t o appl y t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der

. B ot h par t i es agr ee t hat the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof comm i t m enti s r evi ew ed for cl ear err or , and al l t he ci r cui t cour t s t hat have cons i der ed the iss u e -- in c lu d in g th e F if th , E ig h th , T e n th , an d E lev e n th C irc u its

-- hav e held t hat the clear l yerr on eou s st and ard go v e rns. G i l gert , 3 1 4 F .3 d a t 5 1 2 ; U ni t ed Stat es v. W

at t l et on , 296 F. 3d 1 1 8 4 , 1 2 0 1 n .3 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 19 F .3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); U n ited S ta tes v . S teil , 916 F. 2d 485, 488 ( 8t h C i r . 1990)

. U ndert he cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d, an appe l l at e cour t can r ever s e onl y i f, aft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, i ti s l eft“w i th t he defi ni t e and fi r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been c om m i t t ed. ” U

nited St ates v . K i kum ura , 918 F. 2d 1084, 1 0 9 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). “ If th e d istric t co u rt’s f

in d in g is ‘p lau sib le in lig h t o f

th e re c o rd v iew e d in its e n tirety ,’ w e m u st a c c e p t it , e v e n if th e c o u rt w o u ld h a v e e v a lu a ted th e e v id e n c e d if f e re n tly i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . ” Id

. ( quot i ng A nders on v. C i t y of B es s em er C ity , 4 7 0 U
. S
. 5 6 4 , 5 7 3 -74 (19 8 5 )). W e a g ree w ith o u r si ster cir cu it s tha t a distr ictco u rt ’s comm i t m entor derunder§ 4243( e) i s a fi ndi ng of fa ctt hatcan be reversed on l yi f cl earl yerr on eou s. In th e situati on m ost appos i t e – det erm i nat i ons of a de fenda nt ’ s compet encyt o s t and tr ia l – c le a r e rr o r i s t h e g o v e rn in g s ta n d a rd

. U ni t ed Stat es v.

### 19 Jones , 336 F. 3d 245, 256 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. L eg g e tt , 1 6 2 F
. 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ) (cit ati o n o m itted)); s ee als o Mag

gio v. Fulf

ord , 4 6 2 U .S
. 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 (19 8 3 ) (a d e ter m in a tio n o f

c o m p e ten c y is a f

a c tu a l co n c lu sio n e n tit led to d ef ere n ce ). M o reo v er, th e p ri n ciples o f c le a r erro r rev iew are i n acc or d w i t h t he def

er ence due t o a tr i al j udge’ s as s es s m entof w h e t h e r t h e p u b l i c n e e d s p r o t e c t i o n f r o m t h e d a n g e rp o s e d b y a d e f e n d a n t ’ s m e n ta l illn e s s . “ G iv e n th a t ‘it i s im p o ss ib le to pr edi cthow l ong i t w i l l t ake for anygi ven i ndi vi dual t o r ecove r

– o r in d e e d w h e th e r h e w ill e v e r re c o v e r,’ d istric t co u rts gener al l yar e acc or ded gr eat l at i tude w hen det erm i ni ng w hether a ment al l yi l l d ef

en danti s r eadyt o be r el eas ed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v . Ja in , 174 F. 3d 892, 898 ( 7t h C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 4 6 3 U
. S
. 3 5 4 , 3 6 9 (19 8 3 )). I V. O n ap p ea l, S tew art argu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt comm i t t ed cl ear err or beca us e t he evi dence he pr es ent ed att he heari ng cl earl yand con vincin g ly est abli shed thathis rel ease w ould n o tcr eat e a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of bodi l yi nj ur yt o another per s on or s er i ous damage t o pr opert y . H ow ever , ourr evi ew of t he r ecor d i n i t s ent i r ety l eads us t o concl ude t hat t he t r i al j udge d id n o t com m it c le a r error (o r ev en erro r) i n ruli n g S tew art fai l ed t o es t abl i s h hi s ent i t l ementt o r el eas e. S tew a rt a rg u e s th a t th e e x p e rt tes tim o n yin c o n tro v e rtib ly s uppor t s hi s r el eas e. H ow ever , w hi l e th e R i s k A s s es s m entPanel and D r . B ecott e opi ned t h at St ew ar tdi d notpos e a s ubs t ant i al

### 20 r i s k of dangert o s oci etyand r ecomm ended r el eas e, al l t he ex p erts qu ali fied this op inion w ith the c av ea t tha t Stew art neede d t o be r el eas ed i nt o a st ructur ed and s upervi s ed en v ir o n m en t and re m ain m ed icati o n co m p li an t. B u t un d er § 42 43 (e) , t he D i stri ctC ou rtcou l d only com m i t S t ew art or r el ease hi m uncondi t i onal l y , and coul d not i m pos e t hes e condi t i ons , or a n y o th e r r e q u ir e m e n ts , o n h is re le a s e . B aker , 155 F. 3d at394- 95. M or eo v er, St ew ar tfai l ed t o pr ovi de cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hathi s pr opos ed pl an w ould ot herw i s e pr ovi de a s t ructur ed and s upervi s ed envi r onm entand an e nvi r onm entt hat w oul d help en sur e hi s m edi cat i on compl i ance . St ew ar t ’ s pl an p r o v i d e d n o d a y t i me s u p e r v i s i o n , h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n wi t h I CM S w a s e n tirelyv o lu n tar y , itin v o lv e d o n ly w e e k lym e n tal h e a lth m eet i ng s, biw eeklym edicat i on and referral s t o o t her agen ci es, and l i t t l e evi dence w as pr es ent ed on the s ucce s s r at e of I C M S or i t s hi s tory
. A tt he t i m e of the hea r i ng, I C M S had noteven r evi ew ed hi s hi s t or yw i t h any one atFM C D evens orpr o p o s ed a s peci fi c pl an forhi s car e. T hes e fa ct or s , coupl ed w i t h St ew ar t ’ s m ent al heal t h and c rim in a l h isto rya n d th e d if f icu lt n a tu re o f

h is tra n sitio n to ind ep en d en t l iving , su p p o rtthe D istr i ctC ourt ’s find ing

. S tew art has a l on g-st and i ng m ental health p ro b l em of f i ft een y ears , coupl ed w i t h a pos t r el eas e hi s t or yof m edi cat i on noncompl i ance a n d th e c o m m iss io n o f a v io len t cr im e a n d se v e ra l p ro p e rty c rim e s. D u e to e p iso d e s o f d e c o m p e n sa tio n , S tew a rt w a s u n a b le t o s t and t r i al for m or e t han t hr ee y ear s . W hi l e St ew ar thad made p ro g re ss a t F M C D e v e n s, e v id e n c e su g g e ste d h e h a d o n lyA t or al ar gum ent , St ew ar t ' s couns el s t at ed thatSt ew ar thas 10 recent l y request ed a heari ng befo re the d i stri ctcou rtfor r el ease u n d e r § § 4 2 4 3 (f

) a n d 4 2 4 7 (h ). U n lik e § 4 2 4 3 (e ), w h ich o n ly gr ant s t he di s t r i ctcour t t he author i t yt o comm i tan i ndi vi dual or release h im u n co n d it ion all y , § 4 2 4 3 (f ) a lso p rov ides the c o u rt w ith th e sta tu to rya u th o rityto re lea se a n in d iv id u a l f ro m h is comm i t m entw i t h condi t i ons . I n t he ca s e of a condit ional r el eas e, t he cour t can r el eas e t he defe ndant , “under a pr es cr i bed 

### 21 r e c e n t l yr e c o g n i z e d t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f h i s i l l n e s s a n d b e c o me compl i antw i t h t he drug r egi m en. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound that g iven thes e c ir cu m stan ce s, S tew art’s p rop o sed saf eg u ard s w ere i nadequa t e t o ensure hi s m edi cat i on compl i ance , and c o n se q u e n tly , the sa f

e tyo f th e p u b lic. If

re lea se d u n d e r h is p lan , S tew a rt w o u ld e x p e rie n c e a d ra stic tra n sitio n f ro m a h ig h ly c o n tro lled a n d su p e rv ise d e n v iro n m e n t to a lm o st c o m p lete in d e p e n d e n c e w ith a ll its a tte n d a n t u n c e rt a in ty an d s tr e s s , a tra n sitio n th a t h a d p ro v e d p r o b le m a tic f o r h im in th e p a st. W hi l e St ew ar t di d not need t o pr ovi de a “ fai l

- pr oof r el eas e pl an i ncludi ng 24 -hour supervi si on and a gu arant ee aga i nst re c id iv ism , ” A p p e llan t B r. 3 1 , the re w e re ju st no a ss u ra n c e s in t he r ecor d t hatSt ew ar tw oul d cont i nue t o t ake hi s m edi cat i on once r e l e a s e d o r t h a t h e wou l d r e ma i n i n a s t ru c tu r e d and s upervi s ed envi r onm ent
. W e t her efor e fi nd no cl ear err or i n t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatSt ew ar tfai l ed t o pr ove, by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence , t hathi s rel eas e di d notpos e a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of bodi l y i nj ur y t o another per s on orserious d a m a g e t o p r o p e r t y. 10reg im e o f m ed ical, p s y c h ia tr ic , p s y c h o lo g ic a l c a re o r t re a tm e n t,” c a n o rderhis com pli ance w i t h thatregi m e “as an ex pli c it c o n d iti o n o f

re lea se ,” a n d , if h e f

a ils to c o m p ly , ca n re v o k e h is r el eas e and r emand hi m t o a su it abl e fa ci l i t y . 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 4 2 4 3 (f), (g). 

### 22 V. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed ab o v e, w e w i l l A FFIRM t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s Ju d g m en t and C o m m itm en t O rde r.