US v. John Stephenson, No. 12-7180 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7180 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. JOHN STEPHENSON, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:12-hc-02022-BR) Submitted: January 31, 2013 Decided: February 13, 2013 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Joseph Bart Gilbert, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana H. Pereira, Research and Writing Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John Stephenson committing him accordance to with the 18 appeals custody U.S.C. the of district the § 4246(d) court s Attorney order General Finding (2006). in no reversible error, we affirm. A person may be committed under § 4246 if the district court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person 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. another or serious 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). dangerousness Id. person The under § 4246 district by court s damage to property of The Government must establish clear finding and convincing that the evidence. Government has established dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence will not be overturned on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). In 2010, Stephenson came to the attention of police in Hillsdale, Michigan after a manager of a local convenience store reported that Stephenson made a threat in the store to kill thousands and that Washington and Obama are going down. Agents with the United States Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed Stephenson at his residence prior to a scheduled visit in Michigan by the President and 2 observed large quantities of ammunition. Body armor and thousands of rounds of ammunition were subsequently recovered from the residence. Following his indictment in the Western District of Michigan on one count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006), Stephenson was found not competent to stand trial. A magistrate judge later rejected the Government s request to medicate Stephenson against his will and ordered that he be evaluated to determine whether he was suffering from a mental disease or defect such that his release from the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina ( FMC Butner ) would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. In 2011, a panel consisting of three FMC Butner staff members issued a report concluding that Stephenson suffers from Delusional Disorder, Mixed Type, and that this mental illness was such that Stephenson s release would pose a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. Based on the report, the warden filed a certificate of mental disease or defect and dangerousness. At a hearing on the certificate, Hayley Blackwood one of the three FMC Butner staffers who signed the report and the one who diagnosed Stephenson testified as an expert in the field of forensic psychology. Blackwood expressed her expert 3 opinion that released. lack of Stephenson would be substantially dangerous if Her opinion was based on: Stephenson s disorder; his insight into the nature of his mental illness and unwillingness to comply with treatment offered to him; his past training regarding and access to weapons and his lack of understanding that he was prohibited from possessing weapons or ammunition; his history of making violent threats related to his illness; his impulsive behavior; the nature of the social support he would receive in the community; and the results of a clinical risk management assessment tool indicating Stephenson presented a moderate to high risk for future violence. Stephenson presented the testimony of psychiatrist Dr. Graddy. Dr. Graddy who testified as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry although Stephenson had dangerousness, his expressed several social his expert risk support in opinion factors the for that, future community would adequately mitigate against these risk factors, such that his risk of dangerousness to others was low. accepted finding the the opinion existence of of Ms. Blackwood clear and The district court and issued convincing an evidence order that Stephenson suffered from a mental disease or defect and that, as a result of his mental illness, there was clear and convincing evidence that Stephenson s release would pose a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the 4 property of another. Therefore, the district court ordered Stephenson committed to the custody of the Attorney General in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). Ms. cogent, Blackwood s reasoned, and expert opinion grounded in on dangerousness factors specific was to Stephenson s risk of behaving violently in the future and was based on a review of a plethora of forensic, health, and legal records and a multi-month course of observation, interviews, and testing. If the district court credited Blackwood s opinion over given that establish by Dr. Stephenson s evidence. On Graddy, it dangerousness appeal, alone by Stephenson was clear sufficient and implicitly to convincing challenges Blackwood s credibility by challenging the basis for some of her conclusions Graddy. and comparing her credentials with those of Dr. Here, however, the district court had before it the testimony of two experts who drew opposing conclusions regarding Stephenson s risk of future dangerousness. To reach its conclusion based on clear and convincing evidence, the court had to accept one opinion and discount the other. fact observes a witness, its Where a finder of credibility ordinarily are not disturbed on appeal. determinations Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985); Evergreen Int l, S.A. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir. 1987) 5 (per curiam). The district court found Ms. Blackwood credible, and it based its commitment order on that determination. Stephenson argues that his substantial dangerousness was not established by clear and convincing evidence because there exists in the record no documented history that he engaged in physically aggressive behavior or acted out violently on his delusional beliefs and because Dr. Graddy found that protective factors present in his life overcame any risk factors for future violence. As Stephenson We reject these arguments as meritless. acknowledges, overt acts of violence are not required to prove substantial dangerousness in a § 4246(d) case. United States v. Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 677 (8th Cir. 2002). Further, the concerning arguments Stephenson s aggressive behavior ignore Ms. violent related to Blackwood s threats his and mental testimony physically illness, his unwillingness to utilize health resources made available to him, and her opinion on the nature of his social support system in the community. court to Moreover, the arguments effectively ask this overturn the district court s conclusions regarding Blackwood s dangerousness opinion in favor of that given by Dr. Graddy. In light of the great deference on appeal this court affords to credibility determinations, these efforts must fail. Accordingly, We dispense with oral we affirm argument 6 the district because the court s facts and order. legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
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.
