Court Opinion

ID: 2964829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:45.153446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:22.861083
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1427

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   MICHAEL MERRIC,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Michael Merric on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States   Attorney,  and  Margaret  D.
            __________________                                    ____________
        McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney,  on Memorandum of Law  in
        _________
        Support of Motion Pursuant to Loc. R. 27.1 for Summary Disposition for
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   AUGUST 19, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Assuming without  deciding  that we  have
                 ___________

            jurisdiction  to  hear  this  appeal,  and  having  carefully

            reviewed the briefs and record, we find no clear error in the

            order of commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   4241(d).  

                 We  will   not   second-guess   the   district   court's

            determination of  the credibility of the psychiatric reports,

            even  supposing  that  issue of  credibility  was  not waived

            before the district  court.  Further, in the  context of this

            interlocutory  appeal from the   4241(d) commitment order, we

            have  no  call  to review  defendant's  complaints  about his

            medication and the underlying criminal charges.

                 The order is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                              ________   ___

                 Appellant's  motion for stay pending appeal is denied as
                                                                ______

            moot.

                                         -2-