United States v. Peter Four Horns

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 3, 2019
Docket18-3397
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Peter Four Horns (United States v. Peter Four Horns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Peter Four Horns, (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-3397 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Peter Four Horns

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: May 29, 2019 Filed: June 3, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM. Peter Four Horns appeals the district court’s1 order revoking a grant of conditional release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

In 2014, Four Horns was initially civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. In February 2018, the court granted the government’s motion for conditional release under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(e)(2), and imposed eight conditions, including that he not commit a new crime. On March 8, Four Horns was released to a South Dakota living facility. On March 20, the government filed a “Notice of Violation and Request for Warrant,” requesting his arrest and confinement. The Notice included allegations that Four Horns assaulted the owner of the living facility, and threatened the police officer who attempted to question him.

After careful review of the record, this court concludes the evidence developed during the revocation proceedings supports the district court’s determination that revocation and recommitment were warranted. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f); United States v. Franklin, 435 F.3d 885, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2006).

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

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

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Gordon Franklin, Jr.
435 F.3d 885 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Peter Four Horns, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-peter-four-horns-ca8-2019.