United States v. Timothy Paden, No. 07-3871 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. District court's finding under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4245 that defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect and in need of treatment was supported by the record and is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-3871 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Timothy Paden, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: February 5, 2009 Filed: March 2, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Timothy Paden appeals the district court s1 order committing him 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. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court s section 4245 finding was supported by the unrefuted 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. opinions of the mental health professionals at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, and defense counsel s separate examiner, and that the finding was not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding Paden s statement at his hearing that he was fine. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (determination of mental illness and treatment need, and burden of proof); United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review); United States v. Eckerson, 299 F.3d 913, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (upholding commitment order based on opinion of prison hospital staff, despite inmate s denial of mental illness). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. We also deny appellant s motion for appointment of new counsel. ______________________________ -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.
