United States of America v. Darrel Fisher

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner – Appellee,
v.
DARREL FISHER,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02234-BR)
Submitted: October 4, 2011 Decided: October 14, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Joseph B. Gilbert,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Susan Umstead, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Darrel Fisher appeals the district court’s order
finding that he satisfies the criteria for commitment set forth
at 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006) and ordering his commitment to the
custody of the Attorney General. We affirm.
At a hearing, Dr. Maureen Reardon testified that
Fisher suffers from schizophrenia, a major mental illness. Dr.
Reardon stated that Fisher exhibits suspiciousness and anger,
both of which are associated with increased risk of violence.
Additionally, Fisher was described as aggressive and violent
during the nine years he spent in a psychiatric facility, and he
assaulted a treatment provider during that period. Dr. Reardon
testified that past violent behavior indicates the potential for
such violent behavior in the future. Further, at the time of
his arrest, Fisher was found in possession of twenty firearms, a
machete, a stun gun, and pepper spray. Several of the weapons
were positioned near a doorway or open window. Dr. Reardon
testified that involvement with weapons can be a predictor of
future violence involving weapons. Finally, Fisher lacked the
social support that might mitigate the risk of future violence.
Dr. Reardon concluded that Fisher’s release would
create a substantial risk of bodily harm to others or serious
damage to the property of others. Based on this testimony and
other evidence of record, including several forensic reports

-- 2 of 3 --

3
generated between 2009 and 2011, the district court found that
Fisher satisfied the criteria for commitment under § 4246.
After reviewing the record, we hold that the district
court did not clearly err in its determination that Fisher
suffers “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.” See
18 U.S.C. § 4246(a); United States v. Cox, 931 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 of 3 --