UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6294
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DONALD SNYDER,
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-02125-BR)
Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, David T. Huband,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Snyder appeals the district court’s orders:
(1) finding that he continues to satisfy the criteria for
commitment set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2006) and
continuing Snyder’s commitment to the custody of the Attorney
General; and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We
affirm.
The record reveals that, upon Snyder’s motion, the
district court conducted a hearing in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
§ 4247(h) (2006). At the hearing, Dr. Newman testified that
Snyder suffers from bipolar disorder with psychotic features.
During the course of his hospitalization, Snyder has experienced
episodes of severe mental illness during which he became
extremely hostile. Additionally, Snyder has no social or family
support, and his institutional adjustment has been difficult,
including one occasion when he became catatonic and unable to
care for himself. Furthermore, even with medication, Snyder is
likely to have future episodes of mania and psychosis. Finally,
Snyder has a history of noncompliance with his medication
regimen.
Dr. Newman concluded that Snyder’s unconditional
release would create a substantial risk of bodily harm to others
or serious damage to the property of others. Based on this
testimony and other evidence of record, including a December
2
2007 forensic update prepared by staff at FCI-Butner, the
district court found that Snyder met the criteria for continued
commitment under § 4246 and later denied Snyder’s motion for
reconsideration of this order. *
Based on our review of the record, we find that the
district court did not clearly err in its determination that
Snyder continued to suffer “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.” See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a); United States v. Cox,
964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating standard of
review). We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not
significantly aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Snyder contends that the district court’s decision was
based on erroneous or misleading information because certain
documents were not before the court at the time it issued its
original decision. However, Snyder submitted the documents in
question when he moved for reconsideration. Accordingly, we are
convinced that the ultimate decision to continue Snyder’s
commitment was only made following consideration of a full and
complete record.
3