UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6294

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

DONALD SNYDER, 

 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-02125-BR) 

Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne 

M. Hayes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

 Donald Snyder appeals the district court’s orders: 

(1) finding that he continues to satisfy the criteria for 

commitment set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2006) and 

continuing Snyder’s commitment to the custody of the Attorney 

General; and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We 

affirm. 

 The record reveals that, upon Snyder’s motion, the 

district court conducted a hearing in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 

§ 4247(h) (2006). At the hearing, Dr. Newman testified that 

Snyder suffers from bipolar disorder with psychotic features. 

During the course of his hospitalization, Snyder has experienced 

episodes of severe mental illness during which he became 

extremely hostile. Additionally, Snyder has no social or family 

support, and his institutional adjustment has been difficult, 

including one occasion when he became catatonic and unable to 

care for himself. Furthermore, even with medication, Snyder is 

likely to have future episodes of mania and psychosis. Finally, 

Snyder has a history of noncompliance with his medication 

regimen. 

 Dr. Newman concluded that Snyder’s unconditional 

release would create a substantial risk of bodily harm to others 

or serious damage to the property of others. Based on this 

testimony and other evidence of record, including a December 

2 
3 

2007 forensic update prepared by staff at FCI-Butner, the 

district court found that Snyder met the criteria for continued 

commitment under § 4246 and later denied Snyder’s motion for 

reconsideration of this order.*

 Based on our review of the record, we find that the 

district court did not clearly err in its determination that 

Snyder continued to suffer “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.” See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a); United States v. Cox, 

964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating standard of 

review). We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not 

significantly aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 *

 Snyder contends that the district court’s decision was 

based on erroneous or misleading information because certain 

documents were not before the court at the time it issued its 

original decision. However, Snyder submitted the documents in 

question when he moved for reconsideration. Accordingly, we are 

convinced that the ultimate decision to continue Snyder’s 

commitment was only made following consideration of a full and 

complete record.