United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Anthony Threatt, Defendant-appellant, 866 F.2d 1416 (4th Cir. 1989)

Anthony Threatt appeals from the district court's decision to continue his commitment to a health facility for treatment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a).¹  He argues that the evidence presented at his commitment hearing was insufficient to warrant his continued commitment. We affirm.

Threatt was admitted to the Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the charge of threatening to kill President Reagan. On September 3, 1987, the warden at FCI Butner filed a "Certificate of Mental Disease or Defect and Dangerousness." A hearing was convened in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4246(c). During the hearing, a psychiatrist employed at FCI Butner testified that Threatt is a paranoid schizophrenic with grandiose delusions and auditory hallucinations. Further, she said he was a danger to himself and others. Moreover, she testified that Threatt had threatened to kill the President, believes the President is the Antichrist, said he would kill his mother, has suicidal ideations, has a history of assault on police officers, and needs a controlled environment.

Threatt's own psychiatrist testified that Threatt is a chronic schizophrenic whose condition will deteriorate outside a controlled environment.

Threatt testified that he has a slight mental problem. But, despite his history of refusing treatment, he would take his medication and live with his mother or grandparents if released. He also denied being violent, and stated that he only joked about killing his mother and never intended to kill the President.

Threatt's forensic evaluation reveals a long history of mental problems and hospitalization due to them. He was discharged from the Air Force after one year as unsuitable for service.

II

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) a district court must utilize a clear and convincing evidence standard in determining whether commitment is warranted.²  The district court's determination will not be "set aside on review unless clearly arbitrary or unwarranted." Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653, 658 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 970 (1969) (reviewing commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4244). See also United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1978); Butler v. United States, 384 F.2d 522, 523 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 952 (1968).

The record in this case supports, by clear and convincing evidence, the district judge's conclusion that Threatt is suffering from a mental disease or defect that would cause him to create a substantial risk of injury to person or property if released. The district court did not act arbitrarily in ordering commitment.

Hence, we affirm the judgment below. We dispense with oral argument because the materials before the Court indicate that oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.