United States v. Broncheau; United States v. Neuhauser; United States v. Rogers; United States v. Tobey; United States v. Combe; United States v. Kopp; United States v. Erwin; United States v. Caporale; United States v. McGreevy, No. 10-7616 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseIn consolidated appeals, the issues before the court concern the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, specifically the civil commitment provisions codified in 18 U.S.C. 4248. Invoking these provisions, the government initiated proceedings in district court seeking the civil commitment of respondents, all prisoners in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), because the government certified them as sexually dangerous persons. The district court collectively dismissed all nine proceedings under 18 U.S.C. 4241 and issued a dismissal order requiring the government first to release the prisoners from BOP custody, then obtain a commitment order under section 4241, and then finally seek a separate civil commitment order under the second category of persons eligible for certification under section 4248(a). The court held that the dismissal order approach to section 4248 was flawed where it departed from the plain meaning of section 4248(a); it erroneously read section 4248 in pari materia with section 4241; and erroneously invoked the canon of constitutional avoidance. Accordingly, and because the district court did not have the timely benefit of the United States v. Comstock and Timms v. Johns decisions, the court vacated the dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 2, 2011.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 2, 2011.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 6, 2011.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 6, 2011.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 6, 2011.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 6, 2011.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.