United States v. Hill , 400 F. App'x 710 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6213
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DUSTIN ALAN HILL,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02069-BR)
Submitted: September 20, 2010 Decided: November 4, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Susan Umstead, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dustin Hill appeals the district court’s order finding
that he continues to satisfy the criteria for commitment set
forth at 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a) (2006) and continuing his
commitment to the custody of the Attorney General. We affirm.
At a hearing, Dr. Jill Grant, a clinical psychologist
at FMC-Butner, testified that Hill suffers from disorganized
type of schizophrenia. Evaluators also gave Hill a “rule-out”
diagnosis of schizo-affective disorder, bipolar type, “based on
his symptoms of mania, hypomania, and depressive episodes
throughout the years.” Dr. Holly Rogers, an independent
evaluator, concurred that Hill suffers from disorganized
schizophrenia. She testified that Hill’s psychiatric illness is
only partially controlled with medication and that his poor
judgment and poor impulse control increase the likelihood of
future dangerousness. Dr. Rogers agreed with Dr. Grant that
Hill satisfies the criteria for continued commitment set forth
in § 4246. Based on this testimony and other evidence of
record, including a forensic update, the district court found by
clear and convincing evidence that Hill meets the criteria for
commitment. The court ordered that Hill’s commitment continue.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in its determination that
Hill presently suffers “from a mental disease or defect as a
2
result of which his release would create a substantial risk of
bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of
another.” See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a); United States v. Cox, 964
F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating standard of review).
We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not significantly
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3