United States v. Stanley Slupkowski ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. May-
Parker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 A. Slupkowski appeals the district court’s
order, following a hearing, that he continues to meet the
criteria for commitment to the custody of the Attorney General
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Specifically, the district
court determined that Slupkowski continues to suffer from a
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 court’s determination for clear
error. United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir.
1992). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the
reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed the record and
find that the district court’s determination is supported by the
record and is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the
order 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
2