US v. Duane Montgomery
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:16-hc-02218-BR. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [17-6164]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:16-hc-02218-BR)
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: November 3, 2017
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States
Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Dodson,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Duane Montgomery appeals the district court's order finding by a preponderance
of the evidence that he is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect for the
treatment of which he is in need of custody for care and treatment in a suitable facility
and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and
treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245 (2012). Montgomery contends that the district court
clearly erred in reaching this conclusion. We affirm.
In finding that Montgomery satisfied the criteria for commitment, the district court
relied on two written forensic evaluations prepared by staff at FMC–Butner as well as the
testimony of a third forensic psychologist. The unanimous conclusion of the medical
personnel was that Montgomery suffered from a mental disease or defect for which he
required treatment at a suitable facility. Montgomery presented no evidence to contradict
these opinions. Based on Montgomery's medical history, the written evaluations, and the
sworn testimony, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it found that
he met the criteria for commitment under § 4245.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
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?