US v. Hobart Barrett, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-hc-2097-FL-JG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999007465]. Mailed to: Hobart Barrett. [11-7655]
Appeal: 11-7655
Doc: 42
Filed: 12/20/2012
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7655
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
HOBART J. BARRETT, JR.,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge; Bernard A. Friedman, Senior District Judge,
sitting by designation. (5:07-hc-02097-FL-JG)
Submitted:
December 10, 2012
Decided:
December 20, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lewis A. Thompson, III, BANZET, THOMPSON & STYERS, PLLC,
Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker,
United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, W. Ellis Boyle,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-7655
Doc: 42
Filed: 12/20/2012
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Hobart J. Barrett, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order of civil commitment upon finding him a sexually dangerous
person.
abused
On appeal, Barrett contends that the district court
its
discretion
in
denying
the
motion
to
withdraw
an
examiner’s report and that the district court’s then-applicable
standing order * conflicted with the civil commitment statutes,
depriving him of due process.
Finding no error, we affirm.
In a civil commitment proceeding, “the court may order
that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant
be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be
filed with the court.”
18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2006).
The examiner
must be designated by the court; however, the respondent in a
§ 4248 proceeding may select an additional examiner.
§ 4247(b) (2006).
The examiner or examiners so designated must
prepare reports to be filed with the district court.
§ 4247(c).
18 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C.
Section 4247 does not provide for the withdrawal of
examiners or their reports.
With the above statutes in mind, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Barrett’s motion to withdraw an examiner’s report.
United
States
v.
Basham,
561
F.3d
*
302,
325
(4th
Cir.
See
2009)
The standing order has since been superseded by a revised
standing order.
2
Appeal: 11-7655
Doc: 42
(reviewing
Filed: 12/20/2012
evidentiary
Pg: 3 of 3
rulings
for
abuse
of
discretion).
Additionally, we conclude that the district court did not err in
finding that the then-applicable standing order did not directly
conflict
with
the
process
set
out
in
§§ 4247
and
4248
for
designating examiners.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
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?