United States v. Calvin Wedington, No. 13-2174 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case. Ample evidence supported the district court's decision that Wedington was in need of ongoing commitment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4245. [ November 07, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2174 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee v. Calvin Scott Wedington lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: November 7, 2013 Filed: November 8, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal prisoner Calvin Wedington is serving a life sentence imposed in 1982 after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. He is confined at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, pursuant to a 2005 commitment order under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, which provides for the hospitalization 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. In this proceeding, Wedington appeals the district court s1 order denying his most recent 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) motion for discharge from commitment. Following careful review, we conclude that ample evidence supported the district court s finding after a hearing that Wedington was in need of ongoing commitment. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (determination of mental illness and treatment need; burden of proof), § 4247(h) (discharge); United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004) (finding under § 4245 is reviewed for clear error); United States v. Frierson, 208 F.3d 282, 283 (1st Cir. 2000) (commitment under § 4245 continues until earlier of expiration of sentence, determination by director of medical facility that prisoner is no longer in need of hospitalization, or determination by court by preponderance of evidence after hearing upon motion by counsel for committed person that he should be discharged). Despite Wedington s generally exemplary behavior while receiving treatment for his schizophrenia, and his concern about the side effects of his medication, the district court s denial of Wedington s motion to be discharged from commitment was supported by evidence that he lacked insight into his mental illness, that he had a history of refusing medication and decompensating when discharged from prior section 4245 commitments, that he openly indicated he would stop taking his psychiatric medication if allowed to do so, and that his life would be endangered as a result of likely noncompliance with treatment for his other medical conditions if he discontinued his psychiatric medication. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
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.
