US v. Walter Wooden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-hc-02151-BO Copies to all parties and the district court. [999241509].. [12-8144]

Appeal: 12-8144

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
WALTER WOODEN,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02151-BO)

Submitted:

July 19, 2013

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Decided:

Judge,

and

MOTZ

and

November 18, 2013

KEENAN,

Circuit

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Michael G. James,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-8144

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Walter

Wooden

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

committing him as a “sexually dangerous person” pursuant to 18
U.S.C.

§

4248(a)

(2006).

We

vacate

and

remand

for

further

proceedings.
In

July

2010,

the

Government

initiated

civil

commitment proceedings against Wooden by certifying him as a
“sexually dangerous person.”
court

determined

that

After a bench trial, the district

Wooden

was

not

a

“sexually

dangerous

person,” dismissed the case, and ordered Wooden released.

On

appeal, we reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded
for reconsideration.

United States v. Wooden, 693 F.3d 440,

462-63 (4th Cir. 2012).

We reversed as clearly erroneous the

district court’s determinations that Wooden did not suffer from
pedophilia and that Wooden would not have serious difficulty
refraining from re-offending if released.

Id. at 456, 462.

We

remanded with instructions that,
[o]n remand, the district court shall reconsider, on
the basis of the existing record and in light of the
questions about the district court’s original analysis
and the concerns about the existing evidence raised in
this opinion, whether Wooden is a sexually dangerous
person within the meaning of the Act.
Id. at 463.
In December 2012, the district court entered an order
civilly committing Wooden as a “sexually dangerous person.”

2

The

Appeal: 12-8144

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/18/2013

Pg: 3 of 6

district court stated that “the law of the case in this matter
prescribes that on those issues previously found in favor of Mr.
Wooden

and

against

prevails.”

the

(J.A. 353).

[G]overnment,

the

[G]overnment

now

Further, the district court held,

[t]herefore, having carefully considered and now
following the court of appeals’ thorough examination
of the evidence and its conclusions based thereon, the
Court holds that Mr. Wooden does currently suffer from
a serious mental disorder, namely pedophilia, and
finds that he will have serious difficulty refraining
from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if
released.
Accordingly, . . . Wooden[] is hereby
committed . . . .
(J.A. 354).

Wooden appeals, asserting that the district court

misinterpreted our mandate as compelling it to commit Wooden
without reevaluating the evidence.
“We review de novo the district court’s interpretation
of [our] mandate.”

United States v. Pileggi, 703 F.3d 675, 679

(4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The law of

the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule
of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues
in subsequent stages in the same case.”
F.3d

297,

omitted).

308

(4th

Cir.

2011)

L.J. v. Wilbon, 633

(internal

quotation

marks

The mandate rule, “a specific application of the law

of the case doctrine, . . . compels compliance on remand with
the dictates of a superior court.”
Accordingly,

“‘[w]hen

this

court

Pileggi, 703 F.3d at 679.
remands

for

further

proceedings, a district court must . . . implement both the
3

Appeal: 12-8144

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/18/2013

Pg: 4 of 6

letter and spirit of the . . . mandate, taking into account
[our] opinion and the circumstances it embraces.’”

Id. (quoting

United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).
In reversing the district court’s original judgment,
we found the district court’s determination that Wooden was not
a pedophile to be clearly erroneous, Wooden, 693 F.3d at 456.
As

to

the

serious-difficulty

prong,

we

likewise

found

the

district court’s factual determination to be clearly erroneous,
id. at 462.
the

evidence

These conclusions, however, reflected our view of
that

was

presented

at

trial

and

the

district

court’s distillation of that evidence and its explanation of how
it arrived at its factual findings, and we repeatedly emphasized
the district court’s failure to properly account for conflicting
and contrary evidence.

See, e.g., id. at 453 (“The district

court . . . did not account for this evidence when considering
whether Wooden was a pedophile.”); id. at 457-58 (observing that
district court made factual finding about Wooden’s volitional
impairment “without explaining how it had resolved its earlier
questions or even acknowledging the existence of those earlier
questions”);

id.

at

459

(“The

district

court

also

failed

to

consider Wooden’s own testimony when determining whether Wooden
would have serious difficulty refraining from re-offense.”); id.
at

460

(“Because

the

district

court

did

not

consider

this

critical evidence or the other evidence showing the intensity
4

Appeal: 12-8144

and

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/18/2013

persistence

of

Wooden’s

Pg: 5 of 6

child-focused

sexual

fantasies,

thoughts, and urges, the court’s account of the evidence is not
‘plausible

in

light

of

the

record

viewed

in

its

entirety.’”

(quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985))).
Although we expressed doubt about whether the record
could

support

the

result

reached

by

the

district

court,

see

Wooden, 693 F.3d at 462 (“[I]t appears to us that the weight of
the evidence in the record indicates that Wooden’s pedophilia
would cause him to have serious difficulty refraining from reoffense if released.” (emphasis added)), we nonetheless remanded
for

reconsideration

“in

light

of

the

questions

about

the

district court’s original analysis and the concerns about the
existing evidence raised in this opinion,” id. at 463.

Because

the opinion remanded for reconsideration rather than directed
the

entry

of

judgment

for

the

government,

our

mandate

contemplated the possibility that a proper distillation of all
the evidence, including a full accounting of all contradictory
and

conflicting

evidence,

could

perhaps

support

the

district

court’s original findings.
Therefore,

contrary

to

the

district

court’s

conclusion, our mandate thus did not require the district court
on remand to find Wooden to be sexually dangerous.

Because the

district court misapprehended the scope of his authority, we
hereby vacate

the

district

court’s
5

order

and

remand

for

the

Appeal: 12-8144

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/18/2013

Pg: 6 of 6

district court to reconsider the question of Wooden’s sexual
dangerousness
opinion

and

in

accordance

our

original

with

the

opinion.

guidance
We

given

dispense

in

this

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

6