UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6683
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY ANDERSON,
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-02189-BR)
Submitted: September 28, 2012 Decided: October 19, 2012
Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeffrey Anderson appeals the district court’s order
finding that he satisfies the criteria for commitment set forth
at 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006) and ordering his continued commitment
to the custody of the Attorney General. Specifically, the
district court determined that Anderson continues 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. We affirm.
We review the district court’s determination for clear
error. United States v. Cox, 931 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 and
find 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 materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2