UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v. No. 98-6730

FREDDIE STOKELY,

Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CA-98-73-5-BR)

Submitted: March 9, 1999

Decided: March 24, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Robert H. Hale,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael D. Bredenberg,

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Stokely, a federal prisoner, seeks review of a district court

order granting the Government's motion to involuntarily commit him,

under 18 U.S.C. § 4245 (1994), and appointing a guardian to determine on Stokely's behalf whether consent for eye surgery should be

given or withheld. Stokely does not challenge the court's finding that

he suffers from a mental disease, and the record is uncontradicted that

he has a psychotic disorder. He contends, however, that the court

erred by finding that the disease was so debilitating that he could not

give informed consent to surgery and that it warranted transferring

him to a psychiatric hospital against his will. Stokely argues that the

primary purpose of such institutionalization will be to forcibly subject

him to eye surgery, which he avers he had valid reasons to refuse.

The district court properly grants a § 4245 motion if the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the inmate currently suffers from a mental disease or defect requiring "custody for

care or treatment in a suitable facility." United States v. Baker, 45

F.3d 837, 840 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court's determination of

this issue is one of fact, which is reviewed by the appellate court

under a clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Steil, 916

F.2d 485, 487 (8th Cir. 1990). A finding is clearly erroneous when

"the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that

a mistake has been committed." Faulconer v. Commissioner, 748 F.2d

890, 895 (4th Cir. 1984).

Initially, we note that there is no medical evidence in the record

suggesting that Stokely should not have been involuntarily committed. Both Stokely's treating psychiatrist and an independent psychiatrist agree that Stokely suffers from a psychotic disorder and needs

treatment. Stokely offers only bald assertions that commitment is

unnecessary.

 2
Despite a diagnosis of retinal detachment that was threatening the

vision in his right eye, Stokely refused further medical or surgical

supervision. Because of his history of psychotic illness, Stokely was

transferred to another prison for evaluation of his competency to

make decisions about his medical care. Stokely refused to cooperate

with the evaluation, refused to answer questions regarding his background, and refused medication. Stokely appeared unconcerned about

his medical and mental condition and claimed that his sentence had

been overturned and that he was awaiting his release within thirty

days. Stokely also stated that Senator Jesse Helms sent him a letter

telling him that he could receive eye surgery at Emory University.

The treating doctor concluded that there was no basis in reality for

Stokely's beliefs, and Stokely presented no evidence to the contrary.

The doctor also concluded that, despite involuntary injections of an

anti-psychotic medication, Stokely had not improved enough to offer

informed consent to the surgery or make decisions regarding the treatment of his mental condition.

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

the district court's determination that Stokely suffers from a mental

disease for which he requires custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility. The district court's order granting the Government's

§ 4245 motion is, therefore, affirmed. Stokely's reasons for refusing

eye surgery, while potentially valid, do not provide evidence refuting

the medical conclusions that Stokely is in need of psychiatric treatment. Because the guardian is bound to consider Stokely's concerns

regarding his surgery in determining his best interests, we also affirm

the portion of the district court's order appointing an impartial guardian. 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

 3