United States v. Polk

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6527
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN SEAN POLK,
Respondent - Appellant.
No. 08-6823
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN SEAN POLK,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02182-BR)
Submitted: October 24, 2008 Decided: November 13, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Michelle T. Fuseyamore, Raleigh, North Carolina; David T.
Huband, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In each of these consolidated appeals, Kevin Sean Polk
appeals the district court’s April 7, 2008 order continuing his
civil commitment to the custody of the Attorney General under 18
U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). In Appeal No. 08-6527, Polk’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel questions
whether the district court erred in concluding that Polk posed a
substantial risk of danger to others as a result of his mental
disorder. Polk has filed a pro se supplemental informal brief
in each appeal. ∗ We affirm.
After a hearing, the district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Polk “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.” (J.A. at 33). 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. See United States v. Robinson, 404
F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 2005) (providing standards).
∗
We have reviewed carefully the issues raised in the pro se
supplemental informal briefs and find them to be without merit.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district
court. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and 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
4