US v. Marc Gagnon
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARC MARK GAGNON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-00011-jpj-pms-1)
September 10, 2009
September 14, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael T. Hemenway, THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. HEMENWAY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Julie C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Marc Mark Gagnon appeals from the district court's
order denying his motion for conditional release. 1
Gagnon contends that the court erred in its determinations that he had not recovered from his mental disease sufficiently to be conditionally released under a prescribed regimen of treatment, that the medical staff under whose care Gagnon had been had insufficient Gagnon's opportunity and to properly struggled assess to the sincerity of
Gagnon's progress and goal oriented behavior, and that there was no evidence would presented be regarding the conditions no under which we
To be permitted to be released on conditional release in the community after a civil commitment, Gagnon must have
recovered from his mental disease or defect to such extent that his release would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of
See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(e).
A district court's denial of
The charge upon which Gagnon's civil commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(d) (2006), was based was interstate stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2261A (West Supp. 2008). The charge arose from his serious threats to and obsession with a well-known actress. Gagnon has a long history of mental illness, having been diagnosed with schizophrenia more than ten years ago.
release under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) is a factual determination that we will not overturn unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Woods, 995 F.2d 894, 896 (9th Cir. See
United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992).
finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Gagnon's of the conditional treatment release. favoring testified Despite the United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239
conditional that Gagnon
regularly and repeatedly denied any mental illness and refused to comply with his treatment team's recommendations regarding medication. He testified that Gagnon's progress at the facility
had "been fairly minimal," and that Gagnon continues to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. occasionally motivations. 2
He further attested that Gagnon delusional clearly condition his and his
For example, after Gagnon became aware that the victims had expressed fear to the court that he would cause them substantial harm if released, he met with his treatment team minutes before his hearing and, for the first time, acknowledged his mental illness.
beliefs violent several
regarding threats, occasions
relationship attempted to
including shortly before making his application for release, and after claiming to his treatment team that he had no desire to contact her. On these facts, we can find no clear error in the district court's denial of conditional release. affirm. legal before We accordingly
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
contentions the court
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?