UNPUBLISHED

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 States 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 committing 

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 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). The 

district court’s finding that the Government has established 

dangerousness under § 4246 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).

Dr. Maureen Reardon — a staff psychiatrist at the Federal 

Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina (“FMC Butner”) —

evaluated Kanios and issued a report. She concluded 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), probable 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 had 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 risk 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 

underlying charges against Kanios, the reasons behind her 

diagnosis, and Kanios’ mental health history, criminal history,

and institutional adjustment. Finally, Dr. Reardon testified 

that an FMC Butner risk-assessment panel concurred in her

opinion that Kanios represented a substantial risk of bodily 

injury to another and destruction 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 commitment 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 convincing evidence because he 

had not received any incident reports at FMC Butner and that the 

experts’ conclusions were based on conjecture 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 determination 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 has a long history of engaging in violent 

conduct, a propensity to possess firearms, symptoms of paranoia, 

and is 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 while Kanios attacks Dr. 
5

Reardon’s report as speculative, 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