US v. Andrew Sheradin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-hc-02139-D-JG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999003594]. [12-6333]

Appeal: 12-6333

Doc: 36

Filed: 12/17/2012

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW D. SHERADIN,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-02139-D-JG)

Submitted:

December 7, 2012

Decided:

December 17, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, PC, Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, W. Ellis Boyle, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6333

Doc: 36

Filed: 12/17/2012

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Andrew

Sheradin

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

committing him as a sexually dangerous person under the Adam
Walsh

Child

Protection

and

Safety

Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a) (2006).

Act

of

2006

(“Adam

Walsh

We have reviewed the record

and affirm.
The Adam Walsh Act allows for the civil commitment of
a “sexually dangerous person” following the expiration of his or
her federal prison sentence.

In order to civilly commit an

individual as sexually dangerous, the Government must prove by
clear

and

convincing

evidence

that

the

individual:

(1)

has

engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or
child molestation; (2) currently suffers from a serious mental
illness, abnormality, or disorder; and (3) as a result of the
illness, abnormality or disorder, would have serious difficulty
in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation
if released.

18 U.S.C. §§ 4247(a), 4248(d) (2006).

A determination of sexual dangerousness “is for the
factfinder

to

decide

among

reasonable

interpretations

of

the

evidence and determine the weight accorded to expert witnesses.”
United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456, 467 (4th Cir. 2012); United
States v. Francis, 686 F.3d 265, 275 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating
that “whether an individual is mentally ill to this degree turns
on the significance of the factual information as viewed by the
2

Appeal: 12-6333

Doc: 36

expert

Filed: 12/17/2012

psychiatrists

and

Pg: 3 of 5

psychologists.”).

The

serious

difficulty prong of sexual dangerousness refers to the degree of
an

individual’s

“volitional

impairment,

which

impacts

the

person’s ability to refrain from acting upon his deviant sexual
interests.”

Hall, 664 F.3d at 463 (internal quotation marks

omitted).
Sheradin
his commitment:
§ 4248

three

constitutional

challenges

to

(1) the civil commitment statute, 18 U.S.C.

violates

application

asserts

equal

only

to

protection

prisoners;

principles

(2)

the

by

length

limiting
of

the

its

delay

between certifying Sheradin as a sexually dangerous person and
conducting the civil commitment hearing violated his right to
due process; and (3) § 4248 levies an unconstitutional criminal
punishment.
arguments

As

is

Sheradin

foreclosed

concedes,

by

our

however,

decision

in

each

United

of

these

States

v.

Timms, 664 F.3d 436 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct.
189 (2012).
Sheradin

next

contends

that

the

district

court

committed clear error in finding that he meets the requirements
for civil commitment.
improperly
alleging

weighed

that

the

Sheradin asserts that the district court
exhibits

documents

presented
were

by

inaccurate

the
and

Government,
unverified.

Additionally, Sheradin asserts that the district court erred in
assigning credibility to the Government’s expert witnesses.
3

As

Appeal: 12-6333

Doc: 36

Filed: 12/17/2012

Pg: 4 of 5

to these assertions, the district court’s factual findings are
reviewed

for

clear

reviewed de novo.
court’s

factual

error,

while

its

legal

Hall, 664 F.3d at 462.
findings

are

based

conclusions

are

Where the district

on

its

evaluation

of

conflicting expert testimony, we are especially reluctant to set
aside

its

determinations.

Id.

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Given Sheradin’s concession that he previously engaged
in child molestation, the Government was required to prove by
clear

and

convincing

evidence

that

Sheradin

suffers

from

a

serious mental disorder and that, as a result, he would have
serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct
or

child

molestation

if

released.

18

U.S.C.

§ 4247(a)(6).

Because “[e]valuating the credibility of experts and the value
of their opinions is a function best committed to the district
courts,” it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to
accept the opinion of the Government’s expert witnesses that
Sheradin suffers from pedophilia and that he is at a high risk
for recidivism upon release.
as

we

have

previously

Hall, 664 F.3d at 464.

explained,

the

Further,

determination

of

a

particular individual’s risk of recidivism may rely not only on
actuarial tests, but also on factors such as his participation
in

treatment,

his

ability

to

control

his

commitment to controlling his behavior.

Id.

4

impulses,

and

his

Because these are

Appeal: 12-6333

Doc: 36

precisely

the

Filed: 12/17/2012

factors

the

Pg: 5 of 5

district

court

considered

in

Sheradin’s case, we find no clear error in its conclusions.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5