US v. Pablo Ramirez-Alaniz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02159-BR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999741427].. [15-6003]

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 14

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
PABLO RAMIREZ-ALANIZ,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02159-BR)

Argued:

December 9, 2015

Decided:

January 26, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion.
Judge Niemeyer
opinion, in which Judge Duncan and Judge Agee joined.

wrote

the

ARGUED: Joseph Bart Gilbert, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert J.
Dodson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Thomas P. McNamara, Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Jennifer D. Dannels, Assistant
United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 14

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 3 of 14

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
The

district

court

committed

Pablo

Ramirez-Alaniz,

a

Mexican national who had been charged with illegally reentering
the United States following deportation, to the custody and care
of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246.

The court

found that Ramirez-Alaniz, who was being detained at the Federal
Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina (“FMC Butner”), for a
mental

health

evaluation

following

his

illegal

reentry,

was

“suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which
his release [-- whether in the United States or Mexico --] would
create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or
serious damage to the property of another.”
Ramirez-Alaniz now challenges this civil commitment order,
arguing that because he would be deported to Mexico if released,
the district court’s finding of risk of danger to other persons
or

property

would

apply

to

persons

and

property

giving improper extraterritorial effect to § 4246.

in

Mexico,
He notes

that “the dangerousness prong [of § 4246] applies [solely] to
effects within the United States, because the legislation fails
to

clearly

application.”

indicate

that

Congress

intended

extraterritorial

(Emphasis added).

We conclude, however, that because the district court found
that Ramirez-Alaniz’s release would also pose a risk of danger
to persons or property in the United States, we need not reach
3

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

whether

§

Filed: 01/26/2016

4246

applies

Pg: 4 of 14

extraterritorially.

Accordingly,

we

affirm, albeit on reasoning different from that given by the
district court.

I
In
Oregon

January
to

charges

apartment,
resisting

2011,

the

an

for

to

pleaded

discharging

firearm

Oregon

months’ imprisonment.
medication

Ramirez-Alaniz

relating

pointing
arrest,

after

at

state

a

another

court

guilty

firearm

in

in

his

individual,

and

sentenced

him

to

30

During his incarceration, he was given

mental

health

issues.

Thereafter,

he

was

deported to Mexico and prohibited from reentering the United
States.
About

two

weeks

later,

however,

on

December

6,

2012,

Ramirez-Alaniz was detained by border patrol agents in Arizona
and

charged

with

illegal

reentry

following

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
Alaniz

exhibited

inappropriate

poor

and

administration of medication.
staff

psychiatrist

adjustment,

noncompliance

sexually

with

the

As these conditions escalated, a

recommended

psychiatric hospital.

in

While detained, Ramirez-

institutional

behavior,

deportation,

his

transfer

to

an

inpatient

The district court in Arizona ordered

that Ramirez-Alaniz be evaluated for competency restoration and
treatment

under

18

U.S.C.

§

4241

4

and,

if

he

could

not

be

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 5 of 14

restored to competency, that Ramirez-Alaniz remain hospitalized
and undergo a dangerousness evaluation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§§ 4246 and 4248.

Accordingly, Ramirez-Alaniz was transferred

to FMC Butner for evaluation and treatment.
A

panel

of

mental

health

evaluators

at

FMC

Butner

determined that Ramirez-Alaniz was incapable of proceeding with
the pending criminal case in the District of Arizona and that
his competency was unlikely to be restored in the foreseeable
future due to cognitive limitations.

In a subsequent forensic

evaluation completed in June 2014, the FMC Butner medical staff
concluded

that

Ramirez-Alaniz

was

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 the property of others.”
On

receipt

initiated
Mental

the

of

§ 4246(a),

this

present

Disease

District

of

or

proceeding

Defect

and

Carolina

North
and

forensic

on

the

commitment hearing.

evaluation,
by

filing

a

Dangerousness
July

district

court

22,

the

government

Certificate
in

2014,

the

see

thereafter

18

of

Eastern
U.S.C.

conducted

a

During the hearing, the court considered

forensic reports and testimony from Dr. Carlton Pyant, a staff
psychologist

at

FMC

Butner,

and

Dr.

Katayoun

Tabrizi,

a

psychiatrist appointed by the court, both of whom had evaluated
Ramirez-Alaniz.
5

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Dr.

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pyant

diagnosed

Pg: 6 of 14

Ramirez-Alaniz

as

suffering

from

schizophrenia, an unspecified neurodevelopmental disorder, and
an

alcohol

receiving
“poor

use

disorder.

treatment

impulse

at

Dr.

FMC

control”;

Pyant

Butner,

he

was

noted

that

prior

Ramirez-Alaniz

“sexually

had

to

shown

provocative

and

dangerous”; “his speech was disorganized”; “his judgment [was]
poor”;

he

substance

was
abuse;

himself.”
been

“hearing
and

voices”;

he

was

he

engaged

“essentially

in

significant

unable

to

control

Dr. Pyant reported, however, that Ramirez-Alaniz had

compliant

with

the

administration

of

medication

in

the

structured environment of FMC Butner and, with medication, had
demonstrated “some insight into his behavior.”

For example,

Ramirez-Alaniz told Dr. Pyant that the medication had helped to
“stop the voices” and prevent “sexual thoughts.”

Dr. Pyant also

noted that, with medication, Ramirez-Alaniz had been respectful
of

the

rights

cooperative
opinion

of

with

that

others,
staff.

had

a

positive

Nonetheless,

Ramirez-Alaniz

would

attitude,

Dr.

not

Pyant

and

was

continue

was

of

the

with

his

medications if released because he had made statements to that
effect and because he had “minimal to no social support” in the
United

States

to

ensure

medication

provide

necessary

compliance.”

“ongoing

Dr.

Pyant

supervision
also

noted

to
that

Ramirez-Alaniz was unable to provide a realistic plan “to locate
appropriate

aftercare

resources.”
6

Accordingly,

he

concluded

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 7 of 14

that Ramirez-Alaniz, if released, would pose a substantial risk
of

bodily

injury

to

other

persons

or

serious

damage

to

the

property of other persons.
Similarly,
schizophrenia,
disorder.

Dr.
an

She

Tabrizi

alcohol
also

diagnosed

use

made

intellectual disability.

Ramirez-Alaniz

disorder,

a

and

provisional

a

with

cocaine

diagnosis

use

of

an

She noted indicia of cognitive delays,

such as observations that Ramirez-Alaniz was unable to recall a
total of three words after the passing of five minutes, that he
could not state the current month, and that he could not perform
simple

arithmetic.

She

also

noted

several

factors

that

increased Ramirez-Alaniz’s risk for future violence, including a
psychotic

mental

health

illness;

a

history

of

firearm

possession, resisting arrest, drug use, and alcohol addiction;
and social obstacles, including unemployment and lack of social
support in the United States.
Ramirez-Alaniz

had

only

one

She emphasized, however, that
documented

episode

of

dangerous

behavior in the five years during which he lived in the United
States and that he had responded well to medication.
that,

with

medication,

Ramirez-Alaniz

was

She noted
respectful,

cooperative, and had a good sense of humor when she interviewed
him.

Ultimately, Dr. Tabrizi concluded that Ramirez-Alaniz’s

“release

back

to

Arizona

for

deportation

would

not

create

a

substantial risk of bodily injury or damage to the property of
7

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 8 of 14

another in the United States,” but this conclusion was based
primarily

on

her

assumption

that

Ramirez-Alaniz

would

be

deported to Mexico and, pending deportation, would remain in
custody.
try

to

While Dr. Tabrizi recognized that Ramirez-Alaniz might
reenter

discounted

this

the

United

States

risk

because

of

likelihood of” his reentry.
Ramirez-Alaniz

were

to

be

after

“the

deportation,

uncertainty

she

about

the

She recognized, however, that if
released

into

a

“community

in

the

United States on his own,” a problem would exist with “his being
able to access mental health treatment and get his medications.”
Accordingly,
Alaniz

would

she

agreed

meet

that

the

in

criteria

that

circumstance,

Ramirez-

for

civil

commitment

under

Ramirez-Alaniz

also

testified.

He

§ 4246.
At

the

hearing,

expressed his willingness to receive medication to treat his
mental illness and stated, in view of his potential deportation,
that he wished to return to Mexico “as soon as possible.”

He

“promised” that, if deported, he would not return to the United
States without permission.
In argument to the district court, counsel for RamirezAlaniz stated his firm conviction that, if released, RamirezAlaniz would be deported to Mexico “forthwith,” noting that it
would be “preposterous” to assume that the government would not
deport him inasmuch as he is “exactly the kind of person who
8

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

will

be

Filed: 01/26/2016

processed

for

Pg: 9 of 14

deportation.”

Consequently,

counsel

argued that Ramirez-Alaniz would not pose a risk to persons or
property in the United States.
that

immediate

deportation

The government argued, however,

was

not

a

sure

thing,

as

no

Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer was then pending.
After receiving supplemental briefing on whether the reach of
§ 4246 should be limited to persons and property in the United
States, the district court concluded that § 4246 means “that a
person should be civilly committed if he suffers from a mental
disease or defect as a result of which his release would create
a

substantial

regardless

of

risk

of

(Emphasis added).

injury

citizenship

their

bodily

or

to

another

geographic

person,

location.”

The court then found, by clear and convincing

evidence, that “[w]hether [Ramirez-Alaniz] is released in the
United States or his native Mexico, his release would pose a
high

risk

of

dangerousness

cognitive deficits.”

given

his

(Emphasis added).

psychotic

disorder

and

Accordingly, the court

ordered that Ramirez-Alaniz be committed to the custody and care
of the Attorney General.
Following
district

court

the
in

district
Arizona

against

Ramirez-Alaniz.

order,

no

detainer,

court’s

dismissed

Therefore,
criminal

9

commitment
the

criminal

following

proceeding,

the
or

order,

the

indictment
commitment
deportation

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 10 of 14

proceeding was -- nor currently is -- pending against RamirezAlaniz.
From the district court’s civil commitment order, RamirezAlaniz

filed

this

appeal,

contending

that

§

4246

is

not

implicated by his circumstances because, if released, he would
be immediately deported to Mexico and § 4246 applies only to
protect persons and property in the United States.

He argues

that the district court erred in construing § 4246 to include
any risk to persons or property in Mexico.

II
Section 4246 of Title 18 provides that when the director of
a hospital facility “certifies” that a person in the custody of
the Bureau of Prisons or the Attorney General “suffer[s] from a
mental disease or defect” that would pose a “substantial risk”
of bodily injury to persons or serious damage to property, he
must, in the absence of suitable arrangements for state custody,
file the certificate in the district court where the person is
in custody, thus commencing a civil commitment proceeding.
U.S.C. § 4246(a).

18

Upon notice to the person and the government,

the district court must then conduct a hearing to determine the
risk of the person’s danger to other persons and property.
§ 4246(a), (c).

Id.

If the court finds “by clear and convincing

evidence that the person is presently suffering from a mental

10

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 11 of 14

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,” the court must commit the person
to the custody of the Attorney General.
In

this

case,

Ramirez-Alaniz

Id. § 4246(d).
does

not

challenge

the

district court’s finding that he would pose a substantial risk
of

bodily

injury

to

another’s property.

another

person

or

serious

damage

to

Rather, he argues that § 4246 should not be

applied to commit him because he will be deported to Mexico and
the risk which the court found will be relevant only to persons
and property in Mexico, not to persons or property in the United
States.

Consequently,

finding

that

whether

he

is

he

reasons,

Ramirez-Alaniz
“released

in

posed
the

the
a

district

risk

United

of

States

court,

in

dangerousness
or

his

native

Mexico,” erred in construing § 4246 to cover effects in Mexico.
(Emphasis added).

Stated otherwise, Ramirez-Alaniz argues that

the district court erred when it applied § 4246 to persons and
property “anywhere in the world,” thus failing to recognize the
general presumption against the extraterritorial application of
statutes

absent

a

clear

congressional

expression

of

such

application.
The
promptly

government
deported,

argues
§

4246

that

even

“provides

if
for

Ramirez-Alaniz
civil

is

commitment

regardless of the at-risk person’s citizenship or geographical
11

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

location.”

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 12 of 14

It also argues that Ramirez-Alaniz’s deportation is

not certain and that, if released, Ramirez-Alaniz would pose a
risk to persons and property in the United States.

Finally, the

government

were

argues

that

even

if

Ramirez-Alaniz

to

be

deported, his possible reentry would pose a substantial risk of
danger to persons or property in the United States given his
“history of illegally reentering” the country.
While Ramirez-Alaniz focuses his argument on the effect of
his conduct in Mexico, based on his assumption that if released,
he

would

be

deported

to

Mexico

immediately,

the

argument

overlooks the fact that if released, Ramirez-Alaniz would, based
on the record before us, be released into the United States.
There

is

no

proceeding

or

detainer

pending

against

Ramirez-

Alaniz that would preclude his presence in the United States
upon release.

And Ramirez-Alaniz has provided no factual basis

upon which to conclude that the district court’s finding that
his release would pose a high risk of dangerousness “[w]hether
he is released in the United States or his native Mexico” was
clearly erroneous.
Alaniz’s

release

(Emphasis added).

would

pose

a

risk

Thus, because Ramirezof

danger

to

persons

or

property in the United States, we need not address his argument
that § 4246 does not apply extraterritorially.
Ramirez-Alaniz also contends that even if his release would
pose some risk of danger to persons or property in the United
12

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 13 of 14

States, allowing a court in the United States to civilly commit
foreign nationals, such as him, who face possible deportation
would effectively commit such persons to “serve de facto life
sentences at the expense of American taxpayers.”
reading
“absurd

§

4246

to

result”

permit

and

these

would

life

raise

He argues that

sentences
“serious

would

be

an

constitutional

questions.”
We find this argument beset by speculation and hyperbole.
Section 4246 itself provides numerous avenues by which RamirezAlaniz

can

be

§ 4246(d)(2),

released
(e),

(g).

after

commitment.

In

addition,

See

18

U.S.C.

Ramirez-Alaniz

has

challenged neither the government’s statement at the commitment
hearing that it was exploring informal processes to move him to
Mexico

nor

the

government’s

statement

in

its

brief

that

Immigration and Customs Enforcement “still has the option to
initiate deportation proceedings against him” even now that he
is civilly committed.
As to his concern regarding “constitutional problems raised
by

the

district

court’s

decision,”

we

recognize

that

“civil

commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation
of liberty that requires due process protection.”
Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979).
argue

that

hearing.

he

was

denied

due

Addington v.

But Ramirez-Alaniz does not

process

through

the

commitment

And whether due process would be denied with respect
13

Appeal: 15-6003

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/26/2016

Pg: 14 of 14

to any future effort by him to obtain release can, at this time,
only be speculative.
At bottom, we affirm the civil commitment order based on
the

district

court’s

finding

of

risk

of

harm

in

the

United

States, without determining whether 18 U.S.C. § 4246 extends to
risks that Ramirez-Alaniz’s release might also pose outside the
United States.
AFFIRMED

14