Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 14-2243
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner, Appellee,
v.
BRIAN E. MAHONEY,
Respondent, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Mark W. Shea, with whom Shea and LaRocque, LLP was on brief,
for appellant.
Abraham R. George, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Carmen M. Ortiz, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
November 1, 2016
Per Curiam. Brian Mahoney appeals from the district
court's decision to civilly commit him under 18 U.S.C. § 4246.
Federal law authorizes the civil commitment of certain
persons whose release poses a danger to others. See 18 U.S.C. §
4246. When the government seeks to commit such a person, the
district court is to hold a hearing, the scope of which is limited
to two questions: (1) "[w]hether the person . . . is presently
suffering from a mental disease or defect," and (2) "[w]hether the
existence of a mental disease or defect creates a substantial risk
that the person will injure other persons or property if released."
United States v. Thompson, 45 F. App'x 4, 4-5 (1st Cir. 2002) (per
curiam); see also 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a). In Mahoney's case, after
a three-day hearing, the district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that the answer to both questions was "yes"
and that civil commitment was warranted.
Upon review of the record as a whole, consideration of
the parties' briefs, and listening to oral argument, we summarily
affirm the judgment below. See United States v. Mahoney, 53 F.
Supp. 3d 401 (D. Mass. 2014). In doing so, we specifically note
that the district court did not err either by declining to make an
independent finding on whether Mahoney was incompetent or by
relying upon the Modified Pretrial Services Report, nor did it
abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence testimony about
three risk assessment instruments.
- 2 -
The judgment below is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir.
R. 27.0(c).
- 3 -