Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie Earl CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-22
Citations: 655 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 15-3615
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie Earl CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 655
Pages: 521–521

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie Earl CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-3615
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2016
Filed: July 22, 2016
Michelle M. Law, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
Willie Earl Clark, Springfield, MO, pro se.
Cynthia J. Hyde, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Willie Clark appeals the judgment of the district court committing him to the custody of the Attorney General following proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, providing for hospitalization and treatment of an imprisoned person suffering from a mental disease or defect, until he no longer needs treatment or his prison sentence expires, whichever occurs first. We have carefully reviewed the record, which includes a psychiatric report and opinion generated by psychologists at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, where Clark is currently held; the psychologists opined that Clark met the criteria for commitment under section 4245, and their written opinion is uncontradicted by the report of an independent psychiatrist, with whom Clark refused to talk, or by anything else in the record before us. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) that Clark is in need of commitment for mental health treatment in a suitable facility. See United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
. 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, Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.