Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert H. CHERRY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-05
Citations: 601 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 14-3843
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert H. CHERRY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 601
Pages: 459–459

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert H. CHERRY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-3843.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2015.
Filed: May 5, 2015.
David R. Mercer, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
Wilbert H. Cherry, Jr., Springfield, MO, pro se.
Cynthia J. Hyde, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Cherry, Jr. appeals the district court's order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246, upon the court's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Cherry is suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would pose a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. For reversal, Cherry argues that the court improperly relied upon hearsay in committing him.
Reviewing for plain error because Cherry did not raise a hearsay objection below, see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc), we reject the argument, see 18 U.S.C. § 4246(b); United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.2003) (facts and data that form basis for expert opinion need not be admissible in evidence). We also find no clear error in the court's dangerousness finding, in light of the unanimous expert opinion recommending section 4246 commitment. See id. (standard of review); cf. United States v. Lewis, 929 F.2d 440, 442 (8th Cir.1991) (per curiam). -
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel's motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.
. The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.