US v. Robert Eigner
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
April 15, 2009
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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).
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 release of his mental create a disease or defect, risk of his unconditional injury to
another person or damage to property of another.
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. United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). See Nor
do we find any merit to Eigner's challenges to the contents of
determination, or to the effectiveness of his attorney. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order
continuing commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before
We dispense with contentions the court are and
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?