United States v. Jackson Holmes
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dalen v. Harpstead (D. Minn. 2024)
- United States v. Porter (D. Minn. 2025)
- United States v. Chris Prestenbach (8th Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Horne (D. Minn. 1997)
- United States v. Woods (D. Minn. 1997)
- United States v. McAllister (D. Minn. 1997)
- United States v. Larry M. Phillips (4th Cir. 1993)
- United States v. Jeffrey Allen Steil (8th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. McCarty (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1990)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Order On Rehearing
This matter comes before the court of rehearing en banc on a petition of the government. The panel’s opinion, which dealt with appellant’s rights under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, has been vacated.
Holmes’ sentence expired in June 1989. The government stated at oral argument that on completion of Holmes’ sentence, it filed a certificate under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 seeking a district court hearing to determine whether Holmes continues to suffer from a mental disease or defect which would create a substantial risk of bodily injury or property damage to another if Holmes were released. The section 4246 hearing has been deferred several times at Holmes’ request. The government stated that it has acceded to Holmes’ wishes to delay the hearing because Holmes presently is taking an antipsychotic medication voluntarily. Additionally, the government chose to defer the section 4246 hearing because of the pendency of this rehearing and its anticipation of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Washington v. Harper, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990).
The government now asserts that this matter is moot. Holmes’ appeal sought a determination of his right to refuse anti-psychotic medications while being held under 18 U.S.C. § 4245. Because Holmes has completed his sentence and is no longer being held pursuant to that section, we agree that the matter is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Holmes’ appeal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.