United States v. Dees ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6195
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN G. DEES,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02100-BR)
Submitted: October 28, 2010 Decided: December 9, 2010
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana Pereira, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, David T. Huband,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen G. Dees appeals the district court’s order
committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18
U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Dees asserts that the district court
erred in concluding that he posed a substantial risk of danger
to others as a result of his mental disorder. Finding no error,
we affirm.
After a hearing, the district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Dees “is presently suffering 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court did not clearly err in finding that Dees met this
standard. United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.
2003) (stating standard of review); see United States v.
Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 2005) (reviewing for clear
error court’s decision regarding defendant’s competency to stand
trial and citing United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th
Cir. 1992)); see also United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326,
336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating that a finding is clearly
erroneous “when, although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
2
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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
3