
    UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Raphael MENDEZ, Respondent-Appellant. United States of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Raphael Mendez, Respondent-Appellant.
    Nos. 07-6191, 07-6240.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 2, 2007.
    Decided: July 16, 2007.
    Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Huband, Bureau of Prisons, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    No. 07-6191 dismissed; No. 07-6240 affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Raphael Mendez appeals district court orders denying his motion for reimbursement, for a change of venue in his civil commitment proceedings (No. 07-6191) and ordering that he remain committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000) (No. 07-6240). We dismiss as frivolous No. 07-6191 and affirm No. 07-6240.

In No. 07-6191, the district court properly found there were no fees for which Mendez could seek reimbursement. In addition, despite Mendez’s repeated efforts to have the venue moved to the Virgin Islands, the district court properly found venue was proper. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2000). Accordingly, we dismiss as frivolous the appeal from this order.

In No. 07-6240, Mendez appeals the district court order finding that he continues to meet the criteria for commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). A district court’s denial of unconditional release under § 4246 is a factual determination which will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. See United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir.1992) (stating general review standard for factual findings under § 4246). In order to commit Mendez under § 4246, 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. There is no doubt that the evidence before the court supported the district court’s findings. Even Mendez’s independent clinical and forensic psychologist agreed with the risk assessment prepared by the medical professionals at FMC Rochester. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

We dismiss as frivolous the appeal in No. 07-6191 and affirm the order appealed in No. 07-6240. 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.

No. 07-6191 DISMISSED; No. 07-6210 AFFIRMED.  