The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-2074•James Stephenson v. Ramy El-Batrawi
07-2074Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitApr 30, 2008
1The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan
Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-1985
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * District of Minnesota.
*
Onas Barr, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 3, 2008
Filed: April 10, 2008
___________
Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate Onas Barr appeals the district court’s1 order committing him
under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, which provides for the hospitalization of an imprisoned
person suffering from a mental disease or defect, until he no longer needs treatment
or his prison sentence expires, whichever occurs first. Following careful review, we
conclude that the district court’s section 4245 finding was supported by the unrefuted
opinion of the mental health professionals at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester,
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Minnesota, and was not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding Barr’s denial of mental
illness. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (determination of mental illness and treatment need,
and burden of proof); United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004)
(standard of review); United States v. Eckerson, 299 F.3d 913, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2002)
(per curiam) (upholding commitment order based on opinion of prison hospital staff,
despite inmate’s denial of mental illness).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, and deny Barr’s motion.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.