US v. Brett Rodman
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. BRETT A. RODMAN, Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-2157-BR)
February 6, 2009
February 17, 2009
Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Ann 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Brett A. Rodman appeals the district court's order
committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). The district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Rodman "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." (2000). We review the district court's determination for clear error. 1992). United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. We have reviewed the record, the district court's 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d)
conclusion, and the briefs of the parties, and find that the district court's determination is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?