The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-3097•United States of America v. Peter Four Horns
17-3097Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJun 28, 2019
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[Unpublished]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.
-- 1 of 2 --
Peter Four Horns appeals the district court’s order revoking a grant of1
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.
______________________________
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the1
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-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.