Sealed v. Sealed , 185 F. App'x 345 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    June 15, 2006
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-10664
    Summary Calendar
    SEALED APPELLEE,
    Petitioner-Appellee,
    versus
    SEALED APPELLANT,
    Respondent-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Texas
    (USDC No. 4:05-CV-142)
    _________________________________________________________
    Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Sealed Appellant appeals the district court’s order placing her in the custody of the
    United States Attorney General pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 4246
    (d). Reviewing the record
    for clear error, we affirm the order of the district court for the following reasons:
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
    47.5.4.
    1.   We find no clear error in the district court’s holding that Sealed Appellant
    is presently suffering from a mental disease and defect as a result of which
    release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person.
    
    18 U.S.C. § 4246
    (d).
    2.   The ten-page mental health evaluation by the Government’s evaluating
    psychiatrist, the hearing testimony of the Government’s two medical expert
    witnesses and the actions, writings, and testimony of Sealed Appellant
    support this conclusion.
    3.   Sealed Appellant presented no medical evidence to contradict the opinions
    of the Government’s experts, having refused to be interviewed and
    examined by the court’s independent mental health expert designated at her
    counsel’s request. While one examining psychiatrist stated that Sealed
    Appellant would likely present little or no risk to others if she received
    appropriate psychiatric medication and treatment, Sealed Appellant has
    consistently refused such mental health care even in a restrictive
    environment. There is no evidence to suggest that, upon release from a
    structured facility, Sealed Appellant would be able and willing to receive
    appropriate treatment and medication, without which the medical experts
    agree she would likely represent a danger to others.
    4.   Given the weight of the evidence suggesting that Sealed Appellant suffers
    from a severe mental illness requiring custodial psychiatric care and
    treatment and Sealed Appellant’s failure to present evidence to the contrary,
    the district court did not err in ordering her committed to the custody of the
    Attorney General until she is no longer in need of such care. See United
    States v. Muhammad, 
    165 F.3d 327
    , 336 (5th Cir. 1999).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-10664

Citation Numbers: 185 F. App'x 345

Judges: Clement, Higginbotham, Per Curiam, Reavley

Filed Date: 6/15/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023