United States v. Newton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7533
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
versus
SEWN NEWTON,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-422-5-BR)
Submitted: April 9, 2004 Decided: April 29, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D.
Whitney, United States Attorney, R. A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Michelle T. Fuseyamore, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sewn Newton appeals the district court’s order 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 under 18 U.S.C. § 4245 (2000) and ordering him into the
custody of the United States Attorney General for hospitalization
and treatment. Newton’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although
concluding that such allegations lacked merit, counsel asserted
that the district court clearly erred when it reached its finding.
Newton has been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but has not done so. We affirm.
Section 4245 provides for the hospitalization of an
imprisoned person suffering from a 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.” United States v. Baker, 45
F.3d 837, 840 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court’s determination
of this issue is one of fact that we review under a clearly
erroneous standard. See United States v. Steil, 916 F.2d 485, 487
(8th Cir. 1990). A finding is clearly erroneous when “the
reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that
- 2 -
a mistake has been committed.” Faulconer v. Commissioner, 748 F.2d
890, 895 (4th Cir. 1984).
The district court relied on two independent written
psychiatric evaluations of Newton as well as the live testimony of
a psychiatrist at FCI-Butner. The unanimous expert conclusion was
that Newton suffered from a mental disease or defect for which he
required treatment in a suitable facility. Newton did not present
any evidence to the contrary. We therefore conclude the district
court did not clearly err when it found Newton needed to be placed
in a suitable facility for care or treatment of his mental illness
under § 4245. We also conclude Newton received all of the
procedural protections to which he was entitled. See Vitek v.
Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494-96 (1980) (identifying minimum procedural
safeguards for commitment under § 4245).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the decision of the district court. The court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this
court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -