US v. Stephen Dees


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-hc-02100-BR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998482159] [10-6195]

Download PDF
US v. Stephen Dees Doc. 0 Case: 10-6195 Document: 27 Date Filed: 12/09/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6195 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. STEPHEN G. DEES, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:09-hc-02100-BR) Submitted: October 28, 2010 SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 9, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6195 Document: 27 Date Filed: 12/09/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Stephen G. Dees appeals the district court's order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. 4246 (2006). Dees asserts that the district court erred in concluding that he posed a substantial risk of danger to others as a result of his mental disorder. we affirm. After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Dees "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). Finding no error, Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Dees met this standard. 2003) United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. standard of review); see United States v. (stating 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 Case: 10-6195 Document: 27 Date Filed: 12/09/2010 Page: 3 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?