US v. David Reynolds

Filing 920090930

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6439

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID RUSSELL REYNOLDS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:08-hc-02157-BR)

Submitted:

September 18, 2009

Decided:

September 30, 2009

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, David T. Huband, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: David order under committing 18 U.S.C. Russell him § to Reynolds the appeals of the the district Attorney asserts court's General the

custody

4246

(2006).

Reynolds

that

district court erred in concluding that he posed a substantial risk of danger to others as a result of his mental disorder because the court based its conclusion on conjecture and

speculation.

We affirm.

After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Reynolds "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 thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Reynolds 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, court. legal before we affirm the order of the district

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

3