United States v. Eric Grant ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-1158
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Eric Grant
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
    ____________
    Submitted: September 20, 2021
    Filed: December 2, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Eric Grant, a civilly committed person, timely appeals the district court’s1
    order revoking a grant of conditional release. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    In April 2013, Grant was committed to the custody of the Attorney General,
    pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 4246
    . In June 2018, Grant was conditionally released.
    About a year later, the government requested the district court to issue an arrest
    warrant for Grant, claiming he violated the conditions of his release. Specifically,
    Grant broke curfew, failed to consistently participate in his mental health program,
    and used cocaine. The government thus sought revocation of Grant’s conditional
    release under § 4246(f). 2
    Prior to an evidentiary hearing on revocation, Grant moved for an independent
    mental examination under 
    18 U.S.C. § 4246
     and 
    18 U.S.C. § 4247
    (b) and (d) to
    determine whether his continued release would “create a substantial risk of bodily
    injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another.” Grant argued
    that in a proceeding to revoke a conditional release term under § 4246(f), he has a
    clear statutory right to litigate his present mental state. The district court found by a
    preponderance of the evidence that Grant violated the terms of his release.
    Therefore, the district court denied his motion. After the evidentiary hearing, the
    district court revoked his conditional release.
    Grant appeals, arguing the district court’s refusal to order a mental health
    examination before revoking the conditional release violated his statutory rights
    under § 4246(f) and § 4247(d) and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. But,
    as Grant concedes, our recent decision in United States v. Spann, 
    984 F.3d 711
     (8th
    Cir.), cert. denied, 
    141 S. Ct. 2655
     (2021), directly resolves the issue against him.
    Spann held a district court need not order a new mental examination before
    revocation of conditional release if a violation of the conditions of release occurred.
    See 
    id. at 714-15
    . We therefore hold that given the uncontested violations of the
    Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
    of Missouri.
    2
    
    18 U.S.C. § 4246
    (f) outlines the criteria necessary to revoke conditional
    discharge.
    -2-
    conditions of his release, the district court did not err in denying a new mental
    examination and did not deprive Grant of due process or violate § 4246(f). The
    judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1158

Filed Date: 12/2/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/2/2021