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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000000090]. [16-6690]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6690 Doc: 26 Filed: 01/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6690 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. ANDREW D. SHERADIN, Respondent -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?