US v. Andrew Sheradin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-hc-02139-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000000090]. [16-6690]

Appeal: 16-6690

Doc: 26

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6690

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)

Submitted:

December 28, 2016

Decided:

January 9, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leza Lee Driscoll, LAW OFFICE OF LEZA LEE DRISCOLL, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce,
United States Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Michael D.
Bredenberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6690

Doc: 26

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Andrew
revoking

D.

his

Sheradin
conditional

appeals

the

release

district

and

court’s

remanding

him

order

to

the

custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248
(2012).

At the hearing, Sheradin admitted to committing the

named violations of his conditional release: not engaging or
participating in any online computer service in which explicit
content

is

discussed

and

not

possessing

any

pornographic

sexually explicit visual or auditory materials.

or

After hearing

from both parties and expressly stating that it had considered
the entire record in this case, the court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Sheradin violated the conditions of his
release and that the Government met its burden of proving that
Sheradin
failure

“is
to

sexually
comply

psychiatric,

or

dangerous

with

the

psychological

with 18 U.S.C. § 4248(f).

to

others

prescribed
care

or

in

regimen

light
of

treatment,”

of

his

medical,
consistent

Sheradin now appeals, challenging the

court’s finding of sexual dangerousness.
When,

as

here,

a

district

court

is

asked

to

revoke

an

individual’s conditional release granted pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 4248(e), it must hold a hearing to
determine whether the [individual in question] should
be remanded to a suitable facility on the ground that
he is sexually dangerous to others in light of his
failure to comply with the prescribed regimen of

2

Appeal: 16-6690

Doc: 26

Filed: 01/09/2017

medical,
psychiatric,
treatment.

Pg: 3 of 3

or

psychological

care

or

18 U.S.C. § 4248(f).
We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
materials submitted in the joint appendix and find no reversible
error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

United States v. Sheradin, No. 5:07-hc-02139-D

(E.D.N.C. May 12, 2016).

We dispense 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.
AFFIRMED

3