United States v. Isiah Morgan Tyus, 958 F.2d 370, 4th Cir. (1992)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Isiah Morgan Tyus, 958 F.2d 370, 4th Cir. (1992)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs958 F.
2d 370
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Isiah Morgan TYUS, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 91-7229.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 1992.
Decided March 19, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-91-479-HCBR)
G. Alan Dubois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Linda Kaye Teal, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
E.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED.
Before WIDENER and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Isiah Morgan Tyus, a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution at Butner, North Carolina, appeals the district court's finding that he
suffers "from a mental disease or defect for the treatment of which he is in need
of custody for care or treatment." See 18 U.S.C. 4245 (1988). We affirm.
At a hearing on the government's Motion to Determine Present Mental
Condition of Imprisoned Person, the court considered the reports of Sandra
Blakeney, Tyus's psychiatrist at Butner, and Dr. Billy Royal, who was
appointed to conduct an independent examination of Tyus. Both Blakeney and
Royal agreed that Tyus suffered from schizophrenia and needed treatment.
Blakeney testified at trial that Tyus was volatile and explosive. Tyus's
testimony at trial was hostile and incoherent. The district court determined that
a preponderance of the evidence warranted a finding that Tyus should receive
treatment.
Because the district court's decision was not clearly erroneous, see United
States v. Steil, 916 F.2d 485 (8th Cir.1990); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), we affirm the
decision of the district court. 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
