US v. David Reynolds

Filing 920090930

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6439 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID RUSSELL REYNOLDS, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?