UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN SEAN POLK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02182-BR)
Submitted: October 26, 2007 Decided: November 14, 2007
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Krysia Carmel Nelson, NELSON & TUCKER, PLC, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellant. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Thomas Huband,
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Sean Polk appeals the district court’s order
committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18
U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). Polk’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but
stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal. Counsel questions whether the district court erred in
concluding that Polk posed a substantial risk of danger to others
as a result of his mental disorder and whether the court properly
declined to address the argument that Polk should not be civilly
committed when there was a possibility that he would not receive
medication for an indefinite period due to his refusal to accept
it. Polk has filed a pro se supplemental brief.* We affirm.
After a hearing, the district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Polk “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) (2000). Our
thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in finding that Polk met this
standard. See United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th
Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review, citing United States v.
*
We have carefully reviewed the claims raised in the pro se
supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.
- 2 -
Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992)); see also United
States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (“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 quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny Polk’s motions to
mediate, for the appointment of a special master, and for
nonfrivolity. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -