US v. Marc Gagnon, No. 08-8230 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8230 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARC MARK GAGNON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-00011-jpj-pms-1) Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael T. Hemenway, THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. HEMENWAY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Julie C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marc Mark Gagnon appeals from the district order denying his motion for conditional release. 1 court s On appeal, Gagnon contends that the court erred in its determinations that he had not recovered from his mental disease sufficiently to be conditionally released under a prescribed regimen of treatment, that the medical staff under whose care Gagnon had been had insufficient Gagnon s opportunity statements to and properly struggled assess to the sincerity distinguish of between Gagnon s progress and goal oriented behavior, and that there was no evidence Gagnon would presented be regarding released. the Finding conditions no under reversible which error, we affirm. To be permitted to be released on conditional release in the community after a civil commitment, Gagnon must have recovered from his mental disease or defect to such extent that his release would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another. another person or serious See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(e). 1 damage to property of A district court s denial of The charge upon which Gagnon s civil commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(d) (2006), was based was interstate stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2261A (West Supp. 2008). The charge arose from his serious threats to and obsession with a well-known actress. Gagnon has a long history of mental illness, having been diagnosed with schizophrenia more than ten years ago. 2 release under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) is a factual determination that we will not overturn unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Woods, 995 F.2d 894, 896 (9th Cir. See 1993); United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying recommendation release, Gagnon s of Gagnon s the conditional treatment release. Despite favoring psychologist testified treating team the conditional that Gagnon regularly and repeatedly denied any mental illness and refused to comply with his treatment team s recommendations regarding medication. He testified that Gagnon s progress at the facility had been fairly minimal, and that Gagnon continues to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. He further attested that Gagnon occasionally suppressed delusional motivations. 2 Gagnon his still clearly 2 condition maintains his and his delusional For example, after Gagnon became aware that the victims had expressed fear to the court that he would cause them substantial harm if released, he met with his treatment team minutes before his hearing and, for the first time, acknowledged his mental illness. 3 beliefs regarding violent threats, several occasions his and relationship attempted while to committed with the contact and victim her taking of indirectly his his on medication, including shortly before making his application for release, and after claiming to his treatment team that he had no desire to contact her. On these facts, we can find no clear error in the district court s denial of conditional release. affirm. legal before We accordingly We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
