Case: 16-31166 Document: 00514211850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-31166 FILED
Summary Calendar October 26, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
BRIAN GRACO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:14-CR-150-1
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant Brian Graco was indicted for receiving child
pornography. Graco filed a notice of an insanity defense to be supported by
testimony from Dr. Frederic J. Sautter. The Government filed a motion in
limine seeking to prevent Graco from raising an insanity defense or
introducing any evidence of his alleged post-traumatic stress disorder. Relying
on United States v. Eff, 524 F.3d 712, 717-19 (5th Cir. 2008), the district court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 16-31166 Document: 00514211850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2017
No. 16-31166
found that Dr. Sautter’s report did not show that Graco satisfied the elements
required for an insanity defense under 18 U.S.C. § 17. The district court
granted the Government’s motion. Graco pleaded guilty and specifically
reserved the right to appeal the granting of the Government’s motion.
We review a district court’s exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Ogle, 328 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2003). In Eff,we
held that an insanity defense under § 17 requires that the defendant be
completely unable to appreciate the quality of his actions and that having only
a diminished capacity to do so was insufficient for the defense. Eff, 524 F.3d
at 718-720. Graco concedes that the district court was bound by the existing
definition of insanity in § 17 and that Eff governs our review. Graco raises a
challenge to § 17 to preserve it for further direct review.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2