United States v. Newsome ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7452
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY NEWSOME,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-hc-02031-BR)
Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: May 27, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana Pereira, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, David T. Huband, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Newsome appeals the district court’s order
committing him to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). To hospitalize an inmate due for release
but suffering from mental disease or defect, “the court must find
both: 1) that he is suffering from a mental disease or defect, and
2) that as a result of his mental disease, his release would create
a substantial risk of harm to another or the property of another.”
United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). The
medical professionals who evaluated Newsome unanimously concluded
he suffers from schizophrenia and a cognitive disorder. Newsome
engaged in a pattern of increasingly aggressive behavior, including
an unprovoked assault of an elderly inmate and threatening to harm
or kill medical staff and inmates. Based on our review of the
record, the district court did not clearly err in its
determination. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -