United States v. Mendez , 238 F. App'x 951 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
versus
RAPHAEL MENDEZ,
Respondent - Appellant.
No. 07-6240
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
versus
RAPHAEL MENDEZ,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:91-hc-00350-BR)
Submitted: July 2, 2007 Decided: July 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
No. 07-6191 dismissed; No. 07-6240 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Huband, BUREAU OF
PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Raphael Mendez appeals
district court orders denying his motion for reimbursement, for a
change of venue in his civil commitment proceedings (No. 07-6191)
and ordering that he remain committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(2000) (No. 07-6240). We dismiss as frivolous No. 07-6191 and
affirm No. 07-6240.
In No. 07-6191, the district court properly found there
were no fees for which Mendez could seek reimbursement. In
addition, despite Mendez’s repeated efforts to have the venue moved
to the Virgin Islands, the district court properly found venue was
proper. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2000). Accordingly, we dismiss
as frivolous the appeal from this order.
In No. 07-6240, Mendez appeals the district court order
finding that he continues to meet the criteria for commitment
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). A district court’s denial of
unconditional release under § 4246 is a factual determination which
will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. See United
States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating general
review standard for factual findings under § 4246). In order to
commit Mendez under § 4246, the court must find both: (1) that he
is suffering from a mental disease or defect, and (2) that as a
result of his mental disease, his release would create a
substantial risk of harm to another or the property of another.
- 3 -
There is no doubt that the evidence before the court supported the
district court’s findings. Even Mendez’s independent clinical and
forensic psychologist agreed with the risk assessment prepared by
the medical professionals at FMC Rochester. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order.
We dismiss as frivolous the appeal in No. 07-6191 and
affirm the order appealed in No. 07-6240. 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.
No. 07-6191 DISMISSED;
No. 07-6240 AFFIRMED
- 4 -