US v. Stephen Dees, No. 10-6195 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6195 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. STEPHEN G. DEES, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:09-hc-02100-BR) Submitted: October 28, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 9, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Stephen G. Dees appeals the district court s order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Dees 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. Finding no error, we affirm. After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Dees 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 review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did standard. 2003) not clearly err in finding that Dees met this United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. (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 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, court. legal before we affirm the order of the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
