UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 has been committed.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (internal 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 is supported by the record and is not
clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3