United States v. John Stone ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-3588
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    John Stone
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
    ____________
    Submitted: September 15, 2021
    Filed: September 20, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    John Stone appeals the district court’s 1 order revoking a grant of conditional
    release. Having jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , this court affirms.
    1
    The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    Stone was initially civilly committed under 
    18 U.S.C. § 4246
     in 2012. In
    October 2018, the district court granted him conditional release under
    section 4246(e)(2), and imposed conditions, including that he refrain from
    committing a new crime or using alcohol. In March 2019, the government filed a
    notice of violation, and subsequent motion for revocation of conditional release
    under section 4246(f), alleging that Stone had violated the conditions of his release
    by using alcohol and committing the crime of disarming a police officer.
    After careful review of the record, this court concludes that Stone’s statutory
    and constitutional arguments relating to the denial of his request to obtain an
    independent mental examination prior to the revocation of his conditional release
    are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Spann, 
    984 F.3d 711
    (8th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 
    209 L. Ed. 2d 769
     (May 17, 2021); see also United
    States v. O’Laughlin, 
    934 F.3d 840
    , 841 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review). To the
    extent Stone also challenges the propriety of the revocation on evidentiary grounds,
    this court concludes the evidence developed during the revocation proceedings
    supports the district court’s determination that conditional release should be
    revoked. See United States v. Franklin, 
    435 F.3d 885
    , 889-90 (8th Cir. 2006).
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
    of Missouri.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-3588

Filed Date: 9/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/20/2021