Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Anthony BUSSIE, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-03
Citations: 637 F. App'x 102
Docket Number: No. 15-6621
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Anthony BUSSIE, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 102–103

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Anthony BUSSIE, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 15-6621.
United States Court of Appeals, ' Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2016,
Decided: March 3, 2016.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 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.
Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Bussie appeals the district court's order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2012). The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Bussie "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) (2012).
We review the district court's factual determination for clear error. United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir.1992). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is "left -with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We have reviewed the record, the district court's decision, and the briefs of the parties, and we conclude that the. district court's determination is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous, Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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.