U.S. v. SLUPKOWSKI, 08-8336. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20110811105
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 11, 2011
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Stanley A. Slupkowski appeals the district court's order, following a hearing, that he continues to meet the criteria for commitment to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4246 (2006). Specifically, the district court determined that Slupkowski 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
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Stanley A. Slupkowski appeals the district court's order, following a hearing, that he continues to meet the criteria for commitment to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4246 (2006). Specifically, the district court determined that Slupkowski 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 o..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Stanley A. Slupkowski appeals the district court's order, following a hearing, that he continues to meet the criteria for commitment to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Specifically, the district court determined that Slupkowski 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 review the district court's 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 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.
Source: Leagle
