UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner – Appellee,
v.
RAY E. COMBS,
Respondent – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-hc-02220-BR)
Submitted: March 26, 2009 Decided: May 15, 2009
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Neal I. Fowler, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray E. Combs appeals the district court’s order of
civil commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Combs
argues that the district court erred in finding that it had
jurisdiction to commit him pursuant to § 4246 because the
indictment against him was dismissed without explicitly stating
that the dismissal was “solely for reasons related to [his]
mental condition.” Combs also argues that the Government did
not present clear and convincing evidence that his release would
pose a substantial risk because the evidence only indicated
there is a chance that he might engage in dangerous conduct if
he were to be released. We affirm.
We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction. Puryear v. County of Roanoke, 214
F.3d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 2000). The procedural requirements a
court must follow when committing a person for a mental defect
are provided in § 4246(a). A district court must take the
following steps under § 4246 before civilly committing a
defendant: (1) determine there is no state facility available to
house the defendant; (2) give the defendant notice; and (3) hold
a hearing to determine if the defendant is dangerous based upon
clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Copley, 935
F.2d 669, 672 (4th Cir. 1991). Each of these requirements was
met before Combs was civilly committed.
2
Combs received notice of the proceeding when the
Government filed a certificate of mental disease or
dangerousness in December 2007. Further, he was previously
aware that he would be subject to a court’s determination
pursuant to § 4246, as evidenced by his July 2007 request for
dismissal of the indictment, which acknowledged that he would be
subject to § 4246. Both Combs and the Government sought
dismissal of the indictment because mental evaluations indicated
that he was not competent to stand trial and was not likely to
regain competence in the foreseeable future. Thus, it is
abundantly clear the district court’s dismissal of the
indictment pending against Combs was based upon his mental
status, despite its failure to employ the phrasing that the
dismissal was “solely for reasons related to his mental
condition.” The remaining procedural requirements necessary to
support a civil commitment were also satisfied. Following an
evidentiary hearing, the district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Combs was dangerous. The district
court also determined that there was no available state facility
to house Combs.
We also find that the district court’s decision was
amply supported by the evidence. We review the factual
determination that a civil commitment order under § 4246 is
warranted for clear error. United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431,
3
1433 (4th Cir. 1992). The evaluation prepared for the
Government agreed with Combs’ independent psychiatric evaluation
that he suffers from severe schizophrenia and his release would
pose a substantial risk. Combs did not present any evidence to
dispute these evaluations other than an acknowledgement that he
has not posed a substantial risk while confined in an
institution and has not acted out any of his violent thoughts
while he has been institutionalized. Combs’ satisfactory
institutional adjustment, however, does not render clearly
erroneous the district court’s finding that Combs would pose a
substantial risk if he were to be released.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of
the district court. 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
4