US v. Andrew Sheradin
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-hc-02139-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-6690]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
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)
December 28, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248
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
sexually explicit visual or auditory materials.
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
with 18 U.S.C. § 4248(f).
Sheradin now appeals, challenging the
court’s finding of sexual dangerousness.
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
Pg: 3 of 3
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
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?