Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jeffrey ANDERSON, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-19
Citations: 484 F. App'x 848
Docket Number: No. 12-6683
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jeffrey ANDERSON, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 484
Pages: 848–849

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jeffrey ANDERSON, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 12-6683.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 19, 2012.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Joseph B. Gilbert, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, David T. Huband, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Anderson appeals the district court's order finding that he satisfies the criteria for commitment set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006) and ordering his continued commitment to the custody of the Attorney General. Specifically, the district court determined that Anderson continues to suffer 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. We affirm.
We review the district court's 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 and find 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.