Sealed v. Sealed , 185 F. App'x 345 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 15, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10664
Summary Calendar
SEALED APPELLEE,
Petitioner-Appellee,
versus
SEALED APPELLANT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 4:05-CV-142)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sealed Appellant appeals the district court’s order placing her in the custody of the
United States Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). Reviewing the record
for clear error, we affirm the order of the district court for the following reasons:
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1. We find no clear error in the district court’s holding that Sealed Appellant
is presently suffering from a mental disease and defect as a result of which
release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person.
18 U.S.C. § 4246(d).
2. The ten-page mental health evaluation by the Government’s evaluating
psychiatrist, the hearing testimony of the Government’s two medical expert
witnesses and the actions, writings, and testimony of Sealed Appellant
support this conclusion.
3. Sealed Appellant presented no medical evidence to contradict the opinions
of the Government’s experts, having refused to be interviewed and
examined by the court’s independent mental health expert designated at her
counsel’s request. While one examining psychiatrist stated that Sealed
Appellant would likely present little or no risk to others if she received
appropriate psychiatric medication and treatment, Sealed Appellant has
consistently refused such mental health care even in a restrictive
environment. There is no evidence to suggest that, upon release from a
structured facility, Sealed Appellant would be able and willing to receive
appropriate treatment and medication, without which the medical experts
agree she would likely represent a danger to others.
4. Given the weight of the evidence suggesting that Sealed Appellant suffers
from a severe mental illness requiring custodial psychiatric care and
treatment and Sealed Appellant’s failure to present evidence to the contrary,
the district court did not err in ordering her committed to the custody of the
Attorney General until she is no longer in need of such care. See United
States v. Muhammad, 165 F.3d 327, 336 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.