United States v. Perkins

Certiorari dismissed, April 6, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7563
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR PERKINS,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:92-hc-654-BR)
Submitted: January 20, 2009 Decided: February 6, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Victor Perkins appeals the district court’s order
continuing his civil commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006).
On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in concluding
that his release would pose a substantial risk of bodily injury
to another person or serious damage to property of another as a
result of mental disease or defect. We affirm.
In order for Perkins to succeed in his renewed attempt
at release, it was incumbent upon him to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that he has recovered from his mental disease or
defect to such extent that his release would no longer create a
substantial risk. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(e) (2006). The district
court’s finding on the matter will not be overturned on appeal
unless it is clearly erroneous. See United States v. Cox, 964
F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992).
After conducting a hearing, the district court found
by “overwhelming evidence” that Perkins “continues to suffer
from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release
would create a danger to others.” Our thorough review of the
record leads us to conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in finding that continued civil commitment was
warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district
court. We further deny Perkins’ pro se motions for summary
judgment and release. We dispense with oral argument because
2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3