United States of America v. Robert C. Eigner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6564
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT C. EIGNER,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02221-BR)
Submitted: April 15, 2009 Decided: May 19, 2009
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer Haynes Rose, LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER HAYNES ROSE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding,
United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, David T. Huband, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Robert C. Eigner appeals the district court’s April 7,
2008, finding, following a hearing, that he continues to meet
the criteria for commitment to the custody of the Attorney
General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Specifically, the
district court determined that Eigner continues to suffer from a
mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would
create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or
serious damage to property of another.
The evidence before the district court included the
unanimous documented opinions of three mental health experts,
the findings of the FMC Butner Risk Assessment Panel, and the
testimony of Dr. Tabrizi, a court-appointed independent medical
examiner, that Eigner suffers from Schizophrenia, and that, as a
result of his mental disease or defect, his unconditional
release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person or damage to property of another. The bases
relied upon by the expert opinions included Eigner’s extensive
history of mental illness, his lack of insight into his illness
and his need for treatment, and his substantial criminal record.
We find no clear error in the district court’s finding. See
United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). Nor
do we find any merit to Eigner’s challenges to the contents of
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the reports upon which the district court based its
determination, or to the effectiveness of his attorney.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
continuing commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --