**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6175** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Petitioner

- Appellee ,

v. JOHN KANIOS , Respondent

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. W. Earl Britt , Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- hc

- 02188

- BR )

Submitted : November 20, 2015 Decided: December 8, 2015

Before NIEMEYER , KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Diana H. Pereira, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Jennifer D. Dannels, Assistant United S tates Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Kanios appeals the district court’s order committi n g him to the custody of the Attorney General in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2012). We affirm. A person may be committed under § 4246 “[ i ] f, after [ a ] hearing, 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 whic h 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). The district court’s finding that the Government has established dangerousness under § 4246 by clear and conv incing 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). Dr. Maureen Reardon

— a staff psychiatrist at the Fed eral Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina (“FMC Butner”)

— evaluated Kanios and issued a report

. She conclud ed that Kanios suffers from schizophrenia and that his mental illness is such that his release would pose a substantial risk of bodily injury
to another person or serious damage to the property of another. Dr. Reardon based her opinion on several observations: Kanios’ symptoms included “prominent paranoia, behavioral disturbances (e.g., aggression, social withdrawal), probabl e hallucinations,3 mild thought disorder, and mood disturbances, to include expressions of overt hostility , ” (J.A. 58); * Kanios’ past history of violence included two incidents of domestic violence, damaging property, and aggravated burglary ; Kanios ha d an extensive history with firearms ; and Kanios did not have any support from family or friends

. Independent evaluator Dr. Logan Graddy likewise concluded , after interviewing Kanios and reviewing relevant records, that Kanios suffers from schizophrenia and presented several ri sk factors associated with an increased risk of future violence

. At a hearing, Dr. Reardon testified as an expert in forensic psychology. She testified regarding the nature of the und erlying charges against Kanios, the reasons behind her diagnosis, and K anios’ mental health history, criminal history , and institutional adjustment. Finally, Dr. Reardon testified that a n FMC Butner risk

- assessment panel concurred in he r opinion that Kanios represented a substantial risk of bodily injury to another and destr uction to the property of another if released into the community

. Based on this testimony and the expert reports prepared by Dr. Reardon and Dr. Graddy, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Kanios satisfied the criteria for commi tment under § 4246(d).

* “J.A. ” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties.4 Kanios argues on appeal that his substantial dangerousness was not established by clear and conv in cing evidence because he ha d not received any incident reports at FMC Butner and that the experts’ conclusions we re based on conjectur e and speculation. As Kanios 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). Additionally, “ a finding of ‘ substantial risk ’ under [ § ] 4246 may be based on any activity that evinces a genuine possibility of future harm to persons or property.” United States v. Sahhar , 917 F.2d 1197, 1207 (9th Cir. 1990)

. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its determina tion that Kanios suffers from a mental disease as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another or serious damage to the property of another. Kanios ha s a long history of engaging in violent conduct, a propensit y to possess firearms, symptoms of paranoia, and i s known to make threats. See Williams , 299 F.3d at 677

- 78 (affirming commitment decision under § 4246 where defendant had minimal history of violence and problem

- free incarceration but also had underlying convictions evincing potential risk of danger, harbored vengeful intentions toward certain individuals, and had periods of incarceration marked by episodes of “bizarre, defiant and explosive” behavior). And w hile Kanios attacks Dr.5 Reardon’s report as spe culative, it was supported by Dr. Graddy’s independent conclusions, relied on specific observations of Kanios’ behavior, and included a detailed analysis of Kanios’ mental health and criminal history. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED