Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Stanley Slupkowski, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Stanley Slupkowski appealed a district court order finding that he continues to meet the criteria for commitment to the Attorney General under federal law. The appeals court reviewed the district court's determination, which was based on a finding that Slupkowski continues to suffer from a mental disease or defect that would create a substantial risk of harm to others if released. The appeals court found no clear error in the district court's determination and affirmed the order committing Slupkowski.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8336

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Stanley Slupkowski appealed a district court order finding that he continues to meet the criteria for commitment to the Attorney General under federal law. The appeals court reviewed the district court's determination, which was based on a finding that Slupkowski continues to suffer from a mental disease or defect that would create a substantial risk of harm to others if released. The appeals court found no clear error in the district court's determination and affirmed the order committing Slupkowski.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    27 views2 pages

    United States v. Stanley Slupkowski, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Stanley Slupkowski appealed a district court order finding that he continues to meet the criteria for commitment to the Attorney General under federal law. The appeals court reviewed the district court's determination, which was based on a finding that Slupkowski continues to suffer from a mental disease or defect that would create a substantial risk of harm to others if released. The appeals court found no clear error in the district court's determination and affirmed the order committing Slupkowski.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-8336

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    STANLEY A. SLUPKOWSKI,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:94-hc-00392-BR)

    Submitted:

    July 25, 2011

    Decided:

    August 11, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Walter H. Paramore, III, WALTER H. PARAMORE, III, P.C.,


    Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    David T. Huband,
    BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina; Jennifer P. MayParker,
    Rudolf
    A.
    Renfer,
    Jr.,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Stanley
    order,

    following

    A.
    a

    Slupkowski
    hearing,

    appeals

    that

    he

    the

    district

    continues

    to

    courts

    meet

    the

    criteria for commitment to the custody of the Attorney General


    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4246 (2006).
    court

    determined

    that

    Slupkowski

    Specifically, the district

    continues

    to

    suffer

    from

    mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would


    create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or
    serious damage to property of another.
    We review the district courts determination for clear
    error.
    1992).

    United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir.


    A

    factual

    finding

    is

    clearly

    erroneous

    when

    the

    reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction


    that

    Bessemer

    mistake
    City,

    has
    470

    been
    U.S.

    committed.
    564,

    marks and citation omitted).

    573

    Anderson

    (1985)

    v.

    (internal

    City

    of

    quotation

    We have reviewed the record and

    find that the district courts determination is supported by the


    record and is not clearly erroneous.
    order of the district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm the

    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
    2

    You might also like