United States of America v. David Russell Reynolds

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6439
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID RUSSELL REYNOLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-hc-02157-BR)
Submitted: September 18, 2009 Decided: September 30, 2009
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Diana Pereira, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, David T. Huband,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
David Russell Reynolds appeals the district court’s
order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General
under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Reynolds asserts that the
district court erred in concluding that he posed a substantial
risk of danger to others as a result of his mental disorder
because the court based its conclusion on conjecture and
speculation. We affirm.
After a hearing, the district court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Reynolds “is presently suffering 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d).
Our thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in finding that Reynolds met
this standard. United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th
Cir. 2003) (stating standard of review); see United States v.
Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 2005) (reviewing for clear
error court’s decision regarding defendant’s competency to stand
trial and citing United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th
Cir. 1992)); see also United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326,
336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating that a finding is clearly
erroneous “when, although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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

-- 3 of 3 --