Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Timothy NEWSOME, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-27
Citations: 279 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 07-7452
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Timothy NEWSOME, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Timothy NEWSOME, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 07-7452.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 30, 2008.
Decided: May 27, 2008.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana Pereira, Research and Writing Specialist, 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.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Newsome appeals the district court's order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). To hospitalize an inmate due for release but suffering from mental disease or defect, "the court must find both: 1) that he is suffering from a mental disease or defect, and 2) that as a result of his mental disease, his release would create a substantial risk of harm to another or the property of another." United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir.1992). The medical professionals who evaluated Newsome unanimously concluded he suffers from schizophrenia and a cognitive disorder. Newsome engaged in a pattern of increasingly aggressive behavior, including an unprovoked assault of an elderly inmate and threatening to harm or kill medical staff and inmates. Based on our review of the record, the district court did not clearly err in its determination. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.