US v. Dale Morehouse

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02180-BR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999848343].. [15-6771]

Appeal: 15-6771

Doc: 37

Filed: 06/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6771

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
DALE MOREHOUSE,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02180-BR)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

June 9, 2016

Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, G.
Norman Acker, III, Michael Bredenberg, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6771

Doc: 37

Filed: 06/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Dale Morehouse appeals the district court’s order finding
him to be a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (AWCPSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 42474248 (2012), and civilly committing him to the custody of the
Attorney

General.

On

appeal,

Morehouse

contends

that

the

district court clearly erred when it adopted the opinions and
diagnoses

offered

by

three

Government

experts

over

contrary

testimony by the two experts he called and evidence that he
refrained from committing any sexual offenses while living in
the community between 1993 and 2001.

We affirm the district

court’s order.
Under

the

AWCPSA,

a

“sexually

dangerous

person”

may

be

civilly committed following the expiration of his federal prison
sentence.

18 U.S.C. § 4248.

To obtain a commitment order, the

Government had to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence,
that Morehouse
(1) “has engaged or attempted to engage in child
molestation” in the past, 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(5); (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
[reoffending]
if
released,” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(6).
United

States

v.

Hall,

(ellipsis

omitted).

convincing

evidence

The

664

F.3d

456,

Government

standard

by
2

461

(4th

satisfies

presenting

the

Cir.

2012)

clear

“evidence

of

and
such

Appeal: 15-6771

Doc: 37

Filed: 06/09/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm
belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the
allegations sought to be established, [in other words,] evidence
that proves the facts at issue to be highly probable.”

Id.

(alteration supplied) (quoting Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
269 F.3d 439, 450 (4th Cir. 2001)).
Within the context of a civil commitment proceeding, “we
review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and
its legal conclusions de novo.”

Id. at 462.

“A finding is

‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support
it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Id. (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.
364, 395 (1948)).

Where a district court’s factual findings

were the result of witness credibility determinations “we give
even

greater

deference

to

the

trial

(internal quotation marks omitted).
heightened
district

when

court’s

the

credibility

evaluation

of

court’s

findings.”

Id.

This deference is further

determination
conflicting

stems

expert

from

the

testimony.

Id.
Morehouse concedes that the Government satisfied the first
requirement for commitment, stated in 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(5),
but

challenges

satisfied

the

the
second

district
and

court’s

third
3

determinations

requirements

for

that

it

commitment,

Appeal: 15-6771

Doc: 37

Filed: 06/09/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

stated in 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(6).

Having reviewed the record we

are not left with the “definite and firm conviction” that the
district court improperly credited the opinions and diagnoses
offered by the three Government experts.
Grounding their diagnoses in the guidelines established by
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th
Edition (DSM-V), the Government’s experts provided the district
court ample basis to conclude that Morehouse suffered from a
“serious

mental

Morehouse’s
part,

on

illness,

experts

disagreed,

discounting

fantasies

while

abnormality,

in

their

Morehouse’s
prison.

or

disorder.”

opinions

were

self-reporting

One

of

While

based,
of

Morehouse’s

in

sexual
experts

acknowledged that if Morehouse actually experienced the sexual
fantasies
“serious

he

self-reported,

mental

illness,

such

would

abnormality,

or

be

indicative

disorder.”

of

a

Having

observed Morehouse’s testimony and the conflicting statements of
the various experts regarding the veracity of Morehouse’s selfreported sexual fantasies, the district court was in the best
position

to

make

a

credibility

determination

Morehouse experienced those sexual fantasies.

as

to

whether

Accordingly, the

district court was also in the best position to determine if the
Government

presented

clear

and

convincing

evidence

that

Morehouse suffers from a “serious mental illness, abnormality,
or disorder.”
4

Appeal: 15-6771

Doc: 37

Filed: 06/09/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

Turning to the third requirement, the Government experts’
reliance on the evaluation criteria from the STABLE 2007, the
Structured

Risk

Assessment-Forensic

Version

(SRA-FV),

and

the

Psychopathy Checklist provided the district court ample basis to
conclude

that

difficulty

Morehouse,

in

Morehouse’s

if

refraining

contention

released,

from

that

would

reoffending.

his

prior

have

In

eight

serious

contrast

years

in

to
the

community without committing a sexual offense demonstrated that
he

would

not

have

serious

difficulty

refraining

from

reoffending, one of the Government’s experts testified that to
qualify

as

a

protective

factor

under

the

SRA-FV

manual,

an

individual must live in the community for 10 to 15 years without
reoffending.

Furthermore, the Government experts provided the

district court a reasonable basis to conclude that Morehouse’s
sexual

misconduct

in

the

highly

structured

environment

of

prison, as well as his possession of certain pictures in prison,
were

more

indicative

of

the

difficulty

he

would

have

with

respect to reoffending than was his ability to not reoffend over
10 years earlier.

Finally, although Morehouse contends that the

district court placed too much emphasis on his withdrawal from a
sex offender treatment program in prison, this was but one of
many

factors

relied

district court.
district

court

on

by

the

Government

experts

and

the

Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the
clearly

erred

in
5

finding

that

Morehouse,

if

Appeal: 15-6771

Doc: 37

released,

Filed: 06/09/2016

would

have

Pg: 6 of 6

serious

difficulty

refraining

from

reoffending.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

district

because

expressed

in

court’s

the
the

facts

order.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6