US v. John Kanio

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02188-BR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999714078].. [15-6175]

Appeal: 15-6175

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/08/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6175

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
JOHN KANIOS,
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-02188-BR)

Submitted:

November 20, 2015

Decided:

December 8, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Diana H. Pereira,
Assistant 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, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6175

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/08/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
John Kanios appeals the district court’s order committing
him to the custody of the Attorney General in accordance with
18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2012).

We affirm.

A person may be committed under § 4246 “[i]f, after [a]
hearing,

the

[district]

court

finds

by

clear

and

convincing

evidence that the person 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

district

property
court’s

of

another.”

finding

that

18

the

U.S.C.

§ 4246(d).

Government

has

The

established

dangerousness under § 4246 by clear and convincing evidence will
not

be

overturned

on

appeal

unless

it

is

clearly

erroneous.

United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2003);
United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992).
Dr. Maureen Reardon — a staff psychiatrist at the Federal
Medical

Center

in

Butner,

North

Carolina

evaluated Kanios and issued a report.

(“FMC

Butner”)

—

She concluded that Kanios

suffers from schizophrenia and that his mental illness is such
that his release would pose a substantial risk of bodily injury
to another person or serious damage to the property of another.
Dr. Reardon based her opinion on several observations:

Kanios’

symptoms included “prominent paranoia, behavioral disturbances
(e.g., aggression, social withdrawal), probable hallucinations,
2

Appeal: 15-6175

mild

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/08/2015

thought

disorder,

and

Pg: 3 of 5

mood

disturbances,

to

include

expressions of overt hostility,” (J.A. 58); * Kanios’ past history
of

violence

damaging

included

property,

two

and

incidents

aggravated

of

domestic

burglary;

violence,

Kanios

had

an

extensive history with firearms; and Kanios did not have any
support from family or friends.
Graddy

likewise

reviewing

concluded,

relevant

Independent evaluator Dr. Logan
after

records,

that

interviewing
Kanios

Kanios

and

suffers

from

schizophrenia and presented several risk factors associated with
an increased risk of future violence.
At

a

hearing,

Dr.

forensic psychology.
underlying

charges

Reardon

testified

as

an

expert

in

She testified regarding the nature of the
against

Kanios,

the

reasons

behind

her

diagnosis, and Kanios’ mental health history, criminal history,
and institutional adjustment.
that

an

FMC

Butner

Finally, Dr. Reardon testified

risk-assessment

panel

concurred

in

her

opinion that Kanios represented a substantial risk of bodily
injury to another and destruction to the property of another if
released into the community.
expert

reports

district

court

prepared
found

by

by

Based on this testimony and the
Dr.

clear

Reardon
and

and

Dr.

convincing

Graddy,

evidence

the
that

Kanios satisfied the criteria for commitment under § 4246(d).
*

“J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties.

3

Appeal: 15-6175

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/08/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

Kanios argues on appeal that his substantial dangerousness
was not established by clear and convincing evidence because he
had not received any incident reports at FMC Butner and that the
experts’ conclusions were based on conjecture and speculation.
As Kanios acknowledges, overt acts of violence are not required
to prove substantial dangerousness in a § 4246(d) case.

United

States

2002).

v.

Williams,

299

F.3d

673,

677

(8th

Cir.

Additionally, “a finding of ‘substantial risk’ under [§] 4246
may be based on any activity that evinces a genuine possibility
of

future

harm

to

persons

or

property.”

United

States

v.

Sahhar, 917 F.2d 1197, 1207 (9th Cir. 1990).
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
its determination that Kanios suffers from a mental disease as a
result of which his release would create a substantial risk of
bodily injury to another or serious damage to the property of
another.

Kanios

has

a

long

history

of

engaging

in

violent

conduct, a propensity to possess firearms, symptoms of paranoia,
and is known to make threats.

See Williams, 299 F.3d at 677-78

(affirming commitment decision under § 4246 where defendant had
minimal history of violence and problem-free incarceration but
also

had

underlying

convictions

evincing

potential

risk

of

danger, harbored vengeful intentions toward certain individuals,
and had periods of incarceration marked by episodes of “bizarre,
defiant and explosive” behavior).
4

And while Kanios attacks Dr.

Appeal: 15-6175

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/08/2015

Reardon’s

report

Graddy’s

independent

observations

of

as

Pg: 5 of 5

speculative,

it

was

conclusions,

Kanios’

behavior,

supported

relied
and

on

included

by

Dr.

specific
a

detailed

analysis of Kanios’ mental health and criminal history.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

district

because

presented

in

court’s

the
the

facts

order.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5