United States v. Michael Taylor , 644 F. App'x 227 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6971
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Petitioner – Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL ANTHONY TAYLOR,
    Respondent - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:08-hc-02009-BR)
    Submitted:   March 31, 2016                 Decided:   April 8, 2016
    Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Joseph Bart
    Gilbert, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Michael Anthony Taylor appeals from the district court’s
    order revoking his conditional release and remanding him to the
    custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246
    (2012).        On appeal, Taylor contends that the court erred in
    finding that he violated the terms of his conditional release
    due to an arrest for driving under the influence when he was not
    adjudicated guilty of that offense.                  He also maintains that the
    court should not have revoked his conditional release after he
    mailed threatening letters.                Finally, Taylor alleges that his
    original civil commitment was improper because his due process
    rights were violated during the original criminal investigation.
    Finding no error, we affirm.
    When,      as   here,   a    district      court   is    asked    to   revoke    an
    individual’s conditional release granted pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
    § 4246(e), it must hold a hearing to
    determine whether the [individual in question] should
    be remanded to a suitable facility on the ground that,
    in light of his failure to comply with the prescribed
    regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care
    or treatment, his continued release would create a
    substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or
    serious damage to property of another.
    18 U.S.C. § 4246(f).             Accordingly, a district court may revoke
    conditional      release     upon    two     findings:       “that    the   individual
    failed    to    comply     with     his    treatment     regimen      and   that     his
    continued      release   would      create      a   substantial      risk   of   bodily
    2
    injury to another.”         United States v. Mitchell, 
    709 F.3d 436
    ,
    443 (5th Cir. 2013).
    Generally, a district court’s findings of fact under 18
    U.S.C.   § 4246(f),       including    an   individual’s      risk    to     other
    persons or property, are reviewed for clear error.                   See United
    States v. Woods, 
    995 F.2d 894
    , 895-96 (9th Cir. 1993); United
    States v. Cox, 
    964 F.2d 1431
    , 1433 (4th Cir. 1992) (indicating
    similar standard in review of denial of unconditional release).
    Although the district court’s explanation of its reasoning was
    brief, we conclude that Taylor’s admission that he wrote and
    mailed   threatening      letters,     in   addition     to   the    information
    submitted   with    the   Government’s      revocation    motion,    adequately
    supported the conclusion that Taylor’s continued release posed a
    substantial risk to other persons or property.                  See 
    Mitchell, 709 F.3d at 443
    (considering probation officer’s report attached
    to   government’s    motion   for     revocation   of    conditional       release
    when determining whether district court’s factual findings were
    clearly erroneous).         Taylor’s mental health records indicated
    that he had a history of violence, and had a previous arrest for
    being “under the influence of a controlled substance.”
    Taylor’s significant threat to others was clearly exhibited
    by his willingness to engage in noncompliant behavior, such as
    consuming alcohol, and mailing threatening letters to various
    individuals and law enforcement.            See United States v. Sahhar,
    3
    
    917 F.2d 1197
    ,     1207    (9th     Cir.     1990)        (“[A]     finding      of
    ‘substantial       risk’    under   section        4246    may     be     based    on   any
    activity that evinces a genuine possibility of future harm to
    persons or property.”); see also United States v. Williams, 
    299 F.3d 673
    , 677-78 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding of substantial risk
    supported by evidence of delusions and refusal to participate in
    mental health assessment); United States v. Ecker, 
    30 F.3d 966
    ,
    970 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding actual violent conduct, threatening
    letters, history of drug abuse, weapons possession, and failure
    to    take     prescribed    medication        supported     finding       of     probable
    dangerousness).
    Although Taylor claims on appeal for the first time that
    there was insufficient evidence of his use of alcohol because he
    was     arrested,     but    not    convicted,        for     driving        under      the
    influence, this claim fails.               There was sufficient evidence to
    conclude that Taylor had used alcohol without a conviction for
    driving under the influence.               Thus, there is no clear error in
    the court’s finding of a violation of a release condition.
    Finally, Taylor contends that his original commitment order
    was invalid because it resulted from an arrest and indictment
    based     on     an   affidavit      containing           false     information         and
    misrepresentation of the law.              Taylor did not raise these issues
    at the revocation hearing.                Further, he had an opportunity to
    challenge the initial commitment on a direct appeal.                         Therefore,
    4
    these issues are not before us on this appeal from revocation of
    conditional release.
    We therefore conclude that there was no reversible error in
    the revocation of Taylor’s conditional release and affirm the
    district court’s order.      We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    5