UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT T. LOGSDON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-3157

(D.C. No. 6:06-CR-10003-WEB-1)

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

Robert Logsdon was found not guilty by reason of insanity of threatening the 

President of the United States. He was later granted conditional release to the 

Candlerock Residential Care Facility, but within one day was discharged from the facility 

for consuming alcohol on the premises and sharing it with a minor, thereby violating his 

 

*After examining appellant=s brief and the appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination 

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. 

R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 1, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
-2- 

conditions of his release. The district court revoked his conditional release. Mr. Logsdon 

filed a notice of appeal. His counsel determined after a diligent search of the record that 

there are no issues that could support an appeal. He therefore filed a motion to withdraw 

and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mr. Logsdon filed a 

response. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and finding no meritorious 

issues, we dismiss the appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

I. BACKGROUND 

In 2006, Robert Logsdon was charged with threatening the President of the United 

States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871 in the United States District Court for the District 

of Kansas. The court found him not guilty by reason of insanity on June 11, 2007 and 

ordered a psychological evaluation. On May 7, 2008, the court adopted the conclusion of 

the evaluators that releasing Mr. Logsdon from custody created a substantial risk of 

injury to others. The court therefore committed him to the custody of the Attorney 

General until an appropriate placement for conditional release could be found. 

On April 20, 2011, the district court conditionally released Mr. Logsdon to the 

Candlerock Residential Care Facility in Cedar Vale, Kansas. The conditions of his 

release included, among others, residing at Candlerock, abstaining from using alcohol, 

and not committing another federal, state, or local crime. 

According to Probation Officer Toni Corby, on the day Mr. Logsdon arrived at 

Candlerock, he was observed consuming alcohol on the premises. He was arrested and 

charged with furnishing alcohol to a minor. Candlerock discharged him from the facility. 
-3- 

Officer Corby claims that Mr. Logsdon admitted to her that he drank alcohol. 

On May 17, 2011, the government moved to revoke Mr. Logsdon’s conditional 

release on the grounds that he (1) was discharged from Candlerock, (2) consumed 

alcohol, and (3) committed a crime. Mr. Logsdon admitted at the hearing that he 

purchased alcohol, but claimed that he did not intend to drink it and instead planned to 

give it to other adults at Candlerock. He also claimed that he passed a breath test at the 

time of his arrest. 

The district court found that Mr. Logsdon violated the conditions of his release by 

being discharged from Candlerock. The court also found that, “[d]espite Mr. Logsdon’s 

protestations to the contrary, the circumstances make it highly likely that he purchased 

alcohol with the intention of consuming at least some of it, even if a breath test some time 

after his arrest registered no alcohol in his system.” United States v. Logsdon, 2011 WL 

1899305 at *2 (D. Kan. May 19, 2011). 

The statute that provides for conditional release for those found not guilty of a 

crime by reason of insanity also provides for revocation of the release: 

The court shall, after a hearing, determine whether the person should be remanded 

to a suitable facility on the ground that, in light of his failure to comply with the 

prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, his 

continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person 

or serious damage to property of another. 

18 U.S.C. § 4243(g). 

The district court held that the defendant bears the burden of proving that 

continued release would not create a substantial risk. The court then held that Mr. 
-4- 

Logsdon’s continued release would create a substantial risk and ordered his release 

revoked. The court noted that “the same result would obtain here even if the burden were 

on the Government.” Logsdon, 2011 WL 1899305 at *3. 

 Mr. Logsdon filed a timely notice of appeal. His counsel then filed an Anders

brief and a motion to withdraw, stating that “[c]ounsel has reviewed the record of this 

case, researched the issues raised by [Mr. Logsdon] and found them to have no merit.” 

Anders Br. at 2. The government notified the court that it would not file an answer brief. 

Mr. Logsdon filed a response. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Pursuant to Anders, counsel may “request permission to withdraw where counsel 

conscientiously examines a case and determines that any appeal would be wholly 

frivolous.” United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005). 

Under Anders, counsel must submit a brief to the client and the appellate court 

indicating any potential appealable issues based on the record. The client may 

then choose to submit arguments to the court. The Court must then conduct a full 

examination of the record to determine whether defendant’s claims are wholly 

frivolous. If the court concludes after such an examination that the appeal is 

frivolous, it may grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and may dismiss the appeal. 

Id. (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have considered Mr. Logsdon’s counsel’s 

Anders brief and Mr. Logsdon’s response, and we have fully reviewed the record. We 

agree with Mr. Logsdon’s counsel that the record indicates no meritorious issues that may 

be appealed. 

 The Anders brief considers two issues: (1) whether the district court erred in 
-5- 

placing the burden of disproving dangerousness on Mr. Logsdon, and (2) whether the 

court erred in revoking his release. 

As to the burden, Mr. Logsdon argues that “[i]f the district court had placed the 

burden [for proving substantial risk] on the government . . . there is a chance that the 

conclusion of the court in regards to the dangerousness of my continued released would 

have been different.” Mr. Logsdon’s Response at 1. Because the district court stated that 

“the same result would obtain here even if the burden were on the Government,” 

Logsdon, 2011 WL 1899305 at *3, we need not decide whether the court correctly placed 

the burden of disproving dangerousness on Mr. Logsdon, and he is clearly wrong about 

having “a chance” for a different result. 

 As to the revocation, Mr. Logsdon disputes the facts in Officer Corby’s revocation 

hearing testimony and whether she was qualified to testify. But that does not matter 

because even if he were correct, Mr. Logsdon concedes he was discharged from 

Candlerock, see Mr. Logsdon’s Response at 12. Because Mr. Logsdon’s conditional 

release was predicated on his remaining at Candlerock, ROA, Vol. 1 at 30, his discharge 

after one day was itself sufficient for the court to revoke his conditional release. 

 Our review of the record reveals no potentially meritorious issues. 
-6- 

III. CONCLUSION 

We DISMISS the appeal and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge