US v. Anthony Bussie
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02186-BR. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999766989]. [15-6621]
Appeal: 15-6621
Doc: 29
Filed: 03/03/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6621
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY BUSSIE,
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-02186-BR)
Submitted:
January 28, 2016
Decided:
March 3, 2016
Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6621
Doc: 29
Filed: 03/03/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Anthony
Bussie
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18
U.S.C. § 4246 (2012).
The district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Bussie “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)
(2012).
We review the district court’s factual determination for
clear error.
United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th
Cir. 1992).
A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the
reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction
that
a
mistake
Bessemer
City,
has
470
been
U.S.
committed.”
564,
573
Anderson
(1985)
v.
(internal
City
of
quotation
marks and citation omitted).
We have reviewed the record, the district court’s decision,
and the briefs of the parties, and we conclude that the district
court’s
determination
clearly
erroneous.
district
facts
court.
and
legal
is
supported
Accordingly,
We
dispense
contentions
we
with
are
2
by
the
affirm
oral
record
is
not
order
of
the
because
the
the
and
argument
adequately
presented
in
the
Appeal: 15-6621
Doc: 29
materials
before
Filed: 03/03/2016
this
court
Pg: 3 of 3
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional 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?