UNITED STATES v. WEDINGTON (2020)

[Unpublished]

Calvin Wedington seeks release from involuntary commitment at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 4245, 4247(h). The district court ¹ denied his motion after it found that he was still in need of treatment. On appeal, Wedington’s counsel argues that this finding was clearly erroneous and requests permission to withdraw. Wedington filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he argues that he does not have a mental illness.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it found that Wedington was in need of ongoing commitment. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (stating that a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies in commitment proceedings); United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing the standard of review on appeal). There was sufficient evidence in the record that Wedington lacked insight into his mental illness and that, if released, he would stop taking his medication and pose a danger to himself and others. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

PER CURIAM.