Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04261/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04261-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Sean Polk
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4261

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEVIN SEAN POLK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02182-BR)

Submitted: October 26, 2007 Decided: November 14, 2007

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Krysia Carmel Nelson, NELSON & TUCKER, PLC, Charlottesville,

Virginia, for Appellant. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United

States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Thomas Huband,

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4261 Doc: 10000 Filed: 11/14/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
*

We have carefully reviewed the claims raised in the pro se

supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Sean Polk appeals the district court’s order

committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18

U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). Polk’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but

stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for

appeal. Counsel questions whether the district court erred in

concluding that Polk posed a substantial risk of danger to others

as a result of his mental disorder and whether the court properly

declined to address the argument that Polk should not be civilly

committed when there was a possibility that he would not receive

medication for an indefinite period due to his refusal to accept

it. Polk has filed a pro se supplemental brief.* We affirm.

After a hearing, the district court found by clear and

convincing evidence that Polk “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) (2000). Our

thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that the

district court did not clearly err in finding that Polk met this

standard. See United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th

Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review, citing United States v.

Appeal: 07-4261 Doc: 10000 Filed: 11/14/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992)); see also United

States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (“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 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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny Polk’s motions to

mediate, for the appointment of a special master, and for

nonfrivolity. 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

Appeal: 07-4261 Doc: 10000 Filed: 11/14/2007 Pg: 3 of 3