United States v. Willie Clark, No. 15-3615 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Commitment Proceedings. The district court did not err in determining the preponderance of the evidence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4245(d) established Clark is in need of commitment for mental health treatment in a suitable facility.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3615 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Willie Earl Clark lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: July 19, 2016 Filed: July 22, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Willie Clark appeals the judgment of the district court1 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. ______________________________ 1 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. -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.
