
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dwight ARMEL, Appellant.
    No. 11-2955.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 24, 2012.
    Filed: March 1, 2012.
    
      Michelle M. Law, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
    Dwight Armel, Springfield, MO, pro se.
    Earl W. Brown III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, Christina L. Wiggins, Attorney Advisor, U.S. Med. Center for Fed. Prisoners, Springfield, MO, for appellee.
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Dwight Armel appeals the district court’s order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, and we affirm.

Section 4246 provides for the indefinite hospitalization of a person who has been committed to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) (concerning mental incompetence to stand trial) and who is found — by clear and convincing evidence after a hearing — to be suffering from a mental disease or defect such that his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a)-(d). In this case, the district court found the commitment was appropriate because state placement was unavailable and the mental health professionals who examined Armel unanimously believed that his mental illness and history of volatile and threatening behavior would create a risk of dangerousness within the meaning of section 4246 if Armel were unconditionally released. We hold that this finding is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 676-77 (8th Cir.2002) (standard of review). We note that Armel’s custodians are under an ongoing obligation to prepare annual reports concerning his mental condition and the need for his continued hospitalization, see 18 U.S.C. § 4247(e)(1)(B), and to exert reasonable efforts to place him in a suitable state facility, see 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and Armel’s pro se appellate motions are denied. 
      
      . The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recoin-mendations of the Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
     