United States v. Andrew Wolters

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: October 11, 2019
• Docket: 18-2963
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2963 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Andrew Wolters

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________

Submitted: October 04, 2019 Filed: October 11, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Andrew Wolters appeals the district court’s1 order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and care or treatment under 18 U.S.C. § 4245. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful review of the record, including the psychological evaluations of a mental health professional where Wolters is presently confined for treatment, and of defense counsel’s independent psychological examiner, this court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wolters a continuance to obtain a second independent psychological evaluation. See Vasquez v. Colores, 648 F.3d 648, 652 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). The court ’s section 4245 finding was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and was not clearly erroneous. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (burden of proof); United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Wolters’s pro se arguments offer no basis for relief. This court notes that Wolters’s custodians must prepare annual reports concerning his mental condition and the need for continued commitment. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(e)(1)(B).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Wolters’s pro se motion to unseal the brief, addendum, and appendix filed in this matter is granted. ______________________________

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-