US v. Anthony Bussie, No. 15-6621 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6621 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. ANTHONY BUSSIE, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:14-hc-02186-BR) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: March 3, 2016 Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Anthony Bussie appeals the district court’s order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2012). The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Bussie “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) (2012). We review the district court’s factual determination for clear error. United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake Bessemer City, has 470 been U.S. committed.” 564, 573 Anderson (1985) v. (internal City of quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s decision, and the briefs of the parties, and we conclude that the district court’s determination clearly erroneous. district facts court. and legal is supported Accordingly, We dispense contentions we with are 2 by the affirm oral record is not order of the because the the and argument adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
