No. 12-6316
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02196-BR)
Argued:
Decided:
March 5, 2013
PER CURIAM:
Cornell M. Taylor (Appellant) appeals the district
courts order continuing his civil commitment pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 4246.
injury
to
another
property of another.
person
or
serious
damage
to
the
testimony
in
support.
The
evidence
presented
below,
additional
independent
expert
Appellants
report
physician,
continued
authored
by
convincingly
commitment
is
court-appointed
demonstrates
warranted.
For
that
these
I.
On
Central
February
District
of
1,
2006,
Illinois
the
found
District
Appellant
Court
for
the
incompetent
to
on
July
10,
2006,
the
Illinois
district
court
U.S.C. 4246. 1
On
Upon
release
mental
would
disease
create
or
defect,
substantial
as
risk
result
of
of
bodily
which
injury
his
to
On
September
27,
2007,
the
district
court
ordered
adults
in
Springfield,
Illinois. 3
The
district
court
Appellant was
4247(e)(1)(B)
concerning
the
mental
condition
of
The annual
medication),
disorder.
Against
for
the
treatment
advice
of
of
his
his
schizoaffective
primary
clinician,
Due to
that
Appellant
was
not
suitable
for
conditional
release
and
November
9,
2011,
Appellant
moved
the
district
set
6,
hearing
for
February
2012,
to
determine
whether
In
The
psychiatric,
and
social
background;
mental
health
antisocial
Appellant
was
behavior
then
(provisional).
presently
She
prescribed
reported
that
anti-psychotic
medication for his mental illness but was refusing to take it.
She stated that Appellant showed limited insight into his mental
illness and need for treatment.
of
an
independent
that
treatment
with
anti-psychotic
medication,
which
Tabrizi
also
concluded
that
Appellant
exhibited
of
violent/aggressive
behavior,
including
psychotic
and
criminal
history.
Based
on
these
factors,
Dr.
as
long
as
[Appellant]
is
She concluded,
refusing
to
accept
J.A. 44. 6
for
commitment
under
4246.
Appellants
treating
stated
that
Appellant
suffered
from
Dr. Lucking
schizoaffective
by
throwing
that,
and
without
breaking
food
trays.
medication,
he
expected
Dr.
Lucking
Appellant
to
exhibited in 2006. 7
determination
supporting
his
continued
commitment
II.
We review the district courts factual findings for
clear
error
and
its
legal
conclusions
de
novo.
See
United
States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992) (The trial
courts
ruling
denying
[the
committed
persons]
unconditional
the district courts factual findings for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo.).
III.
A.
A
counsel
or
determine
4247(h).
person
legal
whether
committed
guardian,
he
under
file
should
be
4246
motion
released.
may,
for
through
a
See
hearing
18
his
to
U.S.C.
Id. 4246(e).
The
10
B.
In this case, we conclude that the district courts
findings
justifying
clearly erroneous.
Appellants
continued
commitment
were
not
to
in
disorder.
manifest
the
They
active
record
reported
symptoms
contradicts
of
the
that
his
expert
Appellant
illness,
opinions
and
that
court did not clearly err when it found that Appellant continued
to suffer from a mental disease or defect.
Second,
the
totality
of
the
evidence
before
the
to
another
another.
In
psychiatrist,
Dr.
person
support
or
of
Tabrizi,
serious
damage
her
opinion,
reported
that
to
property
the
of
independent
Appellant
exhibited
of
violent/aggressive
behavior,
including
psychotic
Lucking
threatening
expects
and
property.
Dr.
will
cause
aggressive
Lucking
Appellant
behavior
testified
to
against
concerning
engage
in
persons
and
Appellants
considered
by
mental
health
professionals
when
964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Ecker, 30
F.3d 966, 970 (8th Cir. 1994).
entirety,
that
the
evidence
Appellants
before
release
would
district
create
court
established
substantial
risk
of
and
the
opinions
contained
in
the
March
2011
Butner
in
nature,
and,
thus,
not
enough
to
support
He emphasizes that,
since the annual report entered in October 2011, [he] has not
engaged in any physically aggressive behavior directed against
others or property.
evaluation
and
the
and
determination,
district
behavioral
and
court
however,
to
require
consider
psychological
The dangerousness
profile.
the
evaluators
Appellants
United
entire
States
v.
Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 677 (8th Cir. 2002); see also Cox, 964
F.2d at 1433.
the
behavior
length
is
of
merely
time
one
since
piece
Appellants
of
data
among
last
the
As
aggressive
array
of
detailed
above,
the
experts
involved
in
them
Appellant
was
still
suffering
from
mental
the
statutory
substantial
hurdle
risk.
that
18
Appellants
U.S.C.
release
4246(d).
presents
Accordingly,
Appellant did not meet his burden to show that he had recovered,
and the district court did not clearly err when it relied upon
the
uncontroverted
expert
testimony
to
find
that
Appellant
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the district courts order
is
AFFIRMED.
14