US v. John Marvin Ballard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-hc-02155-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999609944].. [14-6835]

Appeal: 14-6835

Doc: 40

Filed: 06/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6835

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
JOHN MARVIN BALLARD,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:10-hc-02155-H)

Submitted:

June 17, 2015

Decided:

June 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lynne L. Reid, L.L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, R.A.
Renfer,
Jr.,
Michael
G.
James,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6835

Doc: 40

Filed: 06/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
John

Marvin

Ballard

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

civilly committing him as a sexually dangerous person, pursuant
to

the

Adam

Ballard

Walsh

concedes

Act,

he

18

meets

U.S.C.
the

§ 4248

first

two

(2012).
criteria

Although
for

civil

commitment; namely, that he has engaged in child molestation in
the past and presently suffers from a serious mental illness,
abnormality,

or

disorder,

he

argues

that

the

district

court

clearly erred in finding he would have serious difficulty in
refraining from child molestation if released.
Ballard,

“the

evidentiary

findings

made

by

According to
the

government

experts and adopted by the court are so internally inconsistent
with the facts such that a reasonable fact finder would not
credit them.”
A

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

determination

factfinder
evidence

to
and

witnesses.”

decide
[to]

of

sexual

among

dangerousness

reasonable

determine

the

“is

for

interpretations

weight

accorded

to

of

the
the

expert

United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456, 467 (4th Cir.

2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v.
Francis,

686

individual

is

F.3d

265,

275

(4th

mentally

ill

to

Cir.
this

2012)
degree

(“[W]hether
turns

on

an
the

significance of the factual information as viewed by the expert
psychiatrists
prong

of

and

sexual

psychologists.”).
dangerousness

“refers
2

The
to

serious
the

difficulty

degree

of

the

Appeal: 14-6835

Doc: 40

person’s
ability

Filed: 06/26/2015

volitional
to

impairment,

refrain

interests.”

Pg: 3 of 5

from

which

acting

impacts

upon

his

the

person’s

deviant

sexual

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

omitted).
The

evaluation

of

a

particular

individual’s

risk

of

recidivism may be based not only on actuarial tests, but also on
factors

such

treatment,

as

his

the

offender’s

ability

to

age,

control

his

commitment to controlling his behavior.
also

considered

an

individual’s

his

participation

impulses,

and

Id. at 464.

resistance

to

in
his

We have
treatment,

continuing “deviant sexual thoughts,” and “cognitive distortions
and thinking errors about the appropriateness of children as
sexual partners[.]”
(4th Cir. 2012).

United States v. Wooden, 693 F.3d 440, 462
Although consideration of the nature of the

respondent’s criminal record is a critical part of the serious
difficulty

analysis,

“sufficient

evidence

the
of

an

Government
ongoing

must

volitional

also

present

impairment[.]”

United States v. Antone, 742 F.3d 151, 167-68 (4th Cir. 2014)
(emphasis omitted).
The

district

court’s

factual

findings

are

reviewed

for

clear error, while its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.
United States v. Perez, 752 F.3d 398, 404 (4th Cir. 2014).
court

grants

great

deference

credibility determinations.

to

factual

findings

based

This
on

United States v. Heyer, 740 F.3d
3

Appeal: 14-6835

Doc: 40

Filed: 06/26/2015

284, 292 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pg: 4 of 5

“[I]f the district court’s account of

the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its
entirety, [we] may not reverse it even though convinced that had
[we] been sitting as the trier of fact, [we] would have weighed
the evidence differently.”
quotation marks omitted).

Wooden, 693 F.3d at 451 (internal
Moreover, “evaluating the credibility

of experts and the value of their opinions is a function best
committed to the district courts, and one to which appellate
courts must defer, and the Court should be especially reluctant
to set aside a finding based on the trial court’s evaluation of
conflicting expert testimony.”
Although
toothless.”
omitted).
findings

“clear-error

Heyer, 740 F.3d at 292.

review

is

deferential,

it

is

not

Wooden, 693 F.3d at 452 (internal quotation marks
Thus, “we may discern clear error when a court makes

without

properly

evidence to the contrary.”

taking

into

account

substantial

United States v. Caporale, 701 F.3d

128, 140 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We

have reviewed the record and have considered Ballard’s arguments
and conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Ballard would have seriously difficulty refraining
from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released
from incarceration.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

district

because
4

court’s

the

facts

order.
and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-6835

Doc: 40

contentions

are

Filed: 06/26/2015

adequately

Pg: 5 of 5

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5