US v. Herbert Overton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-hc-02183-BR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998922901].. [11-7728]

Appeal: 11-7728

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/23/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner – Appellee,
v.
HERBERT OVERTON,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02183-BR)

Submitted:

August 21, 2012

Decided:

August 23, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey A. Phipps, STACY A. PHIPPS, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, David T. Huband, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7728

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/23/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Herbert

Overton

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18
U.S.C. § 4246 (2006).

Overton 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.

Finding no error,

we affirm.
After a hearing, the district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Overton “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 review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court

did

standard.
2003)

not

clearly

err

in

finding

that

Overton

met

this

United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.

(stating

standard

of

review);

see

United

States

v.

Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 2005); 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 and firm conviction that a
mistake

has

been

committed”)

(internal

citation omitted).

2

quotation

marks

and

Appeal: 11-7728

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/23/2012

Accordingly,
court.
legal
before

we

Pg: 3 of 3

affirm

the

order

of

the

district

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3