United States v. Roney , 388 F. App'x 348 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4708
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANNY T. RONEY, a/k/a Danny Roney, a/k/a Khalid Abdul Al-
Mu’Min,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00252-CMC-1)
Submitted: June 25, 2010 Decided: July 21, 2010
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Deborah Brereton Barbier,
Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danny T. Roney appeals the district court’s acceptance
of his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and order
committing him to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 4243 (2006). Roney’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court properly accepted
Roney’s plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and whether the
district court erred in ordering Roney committed under § 4243.
Roney was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
The first issue presented in the Anders brief is
whether the district court properly accepted Roney’s plea of not
guilty by reason of insanity to three charges of mailing threats
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) (2006). We conclude that
Roney may not receive review of an acquittal brought about by a
successful insanity defense. See United States v. Wattleton,
296 F.3d 1184, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2002) (rejecting appeal of
acquittal after successful insanity defense); Curry v.
Overholser, 287 F.2d 137, 139-40 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (same).
Counsel next questions whether the district court
erred in ordering Roney committed to the custody of the Attorney
2
General for an indefinite period of time pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 4243. Section 4243(c) provides that a person found not guilty
by reason of insanity shall be granted a hearing not later than
forty days after the special verdict to determine whether the
release of such person will be dangerous to others or their
property. At the hearing, the defendant has the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence (if the offense
involves bodily injury or the risk of bodily injury) or the
preponderance of the evidence (with respect to any other
offense) that his release would not create a substantial risk of
bodily injury to a person or serious damage to property because
of a present mental disease or defect. 18 U.S.C. § 4243(d); see
United States v. Baker, 155 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1998).
We have reviewed the transcript of the § 4243 hearing
and the evidence presented by the Government and we find that
under either the clear-and-convincing or preponderance-of-the-
evidence standard, Roney failed to meet his burden. The
district court thus did not err in ordering Roney committed to
the custody of the Attorney General.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s orders. This
court requires that counsel inform Roney, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Roney requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Roney. 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
4