US v. Peter M. Ebel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-hc-02124-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999391666].. [13-7528]

Appeal: 13-7528

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/09/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
PETER M. EBEL,
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-02124-BO)

Submitted:

June 27, 2014

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 9, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United
States Attorney, R. A. Renfer, Jr., Denise Walker, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7528

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/09/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Peter

M.

Ebel

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. §§ 4247-48 (2012).

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
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.
In
factfinder

to

18 U.S.C. §§ 4247(a), 4248(d).
assessing
decide

sexual
among

dangerousness,

reasonable

“it

is

interpretations

for

the

of

the

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

Appeal: 13-7528

Doc: 35

expert

Filed: 07/09/2014

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).
Ebel

asserts

three

constitutional

challenges

to

his

commitment: (1) the civil commitment statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4248,
violates equal protection principles by limiting its application
to

prisoners;

(2)

§ 4248

levies

an

unconstitutional

criminal

punishment; and (3) the reasonable doubt standard must apply to
findings in § 4248 hearings.

As Ebel concedes, however, each of

these arguments is foreclosed by our decision in United States
v. Timms, 664 F.3d 436, 444-56 (4th Cir. 2012).
Ebel next contends that the district court committed
clear error in finding that he meets the requirements for civil
commitment.
weighed

Ebel asserts that the district court improperly

evidence

presented

by

the

government

and

ignored

evidence presented in his favor.

Additionally, Ebel asserts

that

in

the

district

court

erred

government’s expert witnesses.

finding

credible

the

We review the district court’s

factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de
novo.

Hall, 664 F.3d at 462.

Where the factual findings are

based on the district court’s evaluation of conflicting expert
3

Appeal: 13-7528

Doc: 35

testimony,

Filed: 07/09/2014

we

are

determinations.

Pg: 4 of 5

especially

reluctant

to

set

aside

its

United States v. Heyer, 740 F.3d 284, 292 (4th

Cir. 2014).
Ebel

conceded

below

that

he

previously

engaged

in

child molestation, and he does not contest in this appeal that
he suffers from a serious mental disorder.

He does contend that

the district court clearly erred in finding the necessary third
prong, that he would have serious difficulty in refraining from
sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.

18

U.S.C.

of

§§ 4247(a)(6),

experts

and

the

4248.

value

of

“Evaluating

their

the

opinions

is

credibility
a

function

best

committed to the district courts,” and the district court here
did not clearly err in accepting the opinion of the government’s
expert witnesses that Ebel is at a high risk for recidivism upon
release and rejecting the testimony of Ebel’s own expert to the
contrary.

See Hall, 664 F.3d at 464.

previously
risk

of

explained,

recidivism

in

the

evaluating
district

a

Further, as we have
particular

court

may

rely

individual’s
on

actuarial

tests, his participation in treatment, his ability to control
his impulses, and his commitment to controlling his behavior,
id., as well as his “deviant sexual thoughts” and “cognitive
distortions

and

thinking

errors

about

the

appropriateness

of

children as sexual partners.”

United States v. Wooden, 693 F.3d

440,

Because

462

(4th

Cir.

2012).

4

these

are

precisely

the

Appeal: 13-7528

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/09/2014

Pg: 5 of 5

factors the district court considered in Ebel’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