UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7126
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner – Appellee,
v.
RONALD EDWARD SOOBRIAN,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02092-BR)
Submitted: May 19, 2014 Decided: May 20, 2014
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Joseph B. Gilbert,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Edward Soobrian appeals the district court’s
order finding that he satisfies the criteria for commitment set
forth at 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2012) and ordering his commitment
to the custody of the Attorney General. We affirm.
At a hearing, Dr. Adeirdre Stribling-Riley, a
psychologist who is Soobrian’s primary evaluator at FMC-Butner,
testified that Soobrian suffers from schizoaffective disorder,
bipolar type, and antisocial personality disorder. She
described Soobrian as extremely hostile and threatening. He has
a long history of assaulting others without provocation by his
victims. Dr. Stribling-Riley testified that Soobrian will
injure or harm someone if given the opportunity to do so. He
could not be expected to be compliant with a medication regimen.
Dr. Stribling-Riley concluded that Soobrian’s 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 forensic
reports generated by staff at FMC-Butner and by Dr. Groddy, an
independent evaluator, the district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Soobrian satisfied the criteria for
commitment under § 4246(d).
After reviewing the record, we hold that the district
court did not clearly err in its determination that Soobrian
2
suffers “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(d); United States v. Cox, 931 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
3