United States v. Nicholson , 290 F. App'x 617 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7171
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARSHALL NICHOLSON,
Defendant - 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-02057-BR)
Submitted: August 1, 2008 Decided: August 28, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marshall Nicholson appeals the district court’s order,
under 18 U.S.C. § 4245 (2000), finding that he is presently
suffering from a mental disease or defect for which he is in need
of custody for care and treatment in a suitable facility.
Nicholson contends the district court clearly erred in reaching
this finding. We affirm.
Section 4245 provides for the hospitalization of an
imprisoned person suffering from mental disease or defect. The
district court properly grants a § 4245 motion if the government
proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the inmate currently
suffers from a mental disease or defect requiring “custody for care
or treatment in a suitable facility.” 18 U.S.C. § 4245(a), (d);
see United States v. Baker, 45 F.3d 837, 840 (4th Cir. 1995). The
district court’s determination of this issue is one of fact, which
is reviewed by the appellate court under a clearly erroneous
standard. See United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir.
2004). A finding is clearly erroneous when “‘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) (quoting United States v.
U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
In making its assessment, the district court relied on
the written evaluation of staff at FCI Butner, an independent
- 2 -
psychiatrist’s written evaluation, and the live testimony of a
Butner psychiatrist. The unanimous conclusion of the experts was
that Nicholson suffered from a mental disease or defect for which
he required treatment at a suitable facility. Nicholson presented
no evidence to the contrary. We therefore have no difficulty
concluding that the district court did not clearly err when it
found Nicholson needed to be placed in a suitable facility for
treatment of his mental illness under § 4245.
We affirm the district court’s order. 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
- 3 -