
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul NAGY, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Nagy, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 02-7595, 02-7849.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 26, 2003.
    Decided April 15, 2003.
    Paul Nagy, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In No. 02-7595, Paul Nagy appeals the district court’s orders: (1) finding that he continues to satisfy the criteria for commitment set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000) and continuing Nagy’s commitment to the custody of the Attorney General; and (2) denying Nagy’s motion for reconsideration. The record reveals that, upon Nagy’s motion, the district court conducted a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2000). At the hearing, Dr. Herbel, a physician at FCI-Butner, testified that the underlying delusions that had previously led to Nagy’s dangerous behavior were still present, despite medication and treatment. The district court had before it at the hearing two written evaluations, including one from Nagy’s court-appointed psychiatrist, who concurred with Dr. Herbel that Nagy was delusional and should remain in the Attorney General’s custody.

Based on our review of the record, the district court did not clearly err in determining that clear and convincing evidence established that Nagy was 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 the property of another. We accordingly affirm the decision of the district court.

In No. 02-7849, Nagy appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to disqualify a court-appointed psychiatrist and the Assistant Federal Public Defender. We find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  