US v. Andrew Sheradin, No. 12-6333 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6333 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. ANDREW D. SHERADIN, Respondent -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-JG) Submitted: December 7, 2012 Decided: December 17, 2012 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, PC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, W. Ellis Boyle, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew Sheradin appeals the district court s order committing him as a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act ), 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a) (2006). Act of 2006 ( Adam Walsh We have reviewed the record and affirm. The Adam Walsh Act allows for the civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person following the expiration of his or her federal prison sentence. In order to civilly commit an individual as sexually dangerous, the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual: (1) has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation; (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 sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247(a), 4248(d) (2006). A determination of sexual dangerousness is for the factfinder to decide among reasonable interpretations of the evidence and determine the weight accorded to expert witnesses. United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456, 467 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Francis, 686 F.3d 265, 275 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating that whether an individual is mentally ill to this degree turns on the significance of the factual information as viewed by the 2 expert psychiatrists and psychologists. ). The serious difficulty prong of sexual dangerousness refers to the degree of an individual s volitional impairment, which impacts the person s ability to refrain from acting upon his deviant sexual interests. Hall, 664 F.3d at 463 (internal quotation marks omitted). Sheradin his commitment: § 4248 three constitutional challenges to (1) the civil commitment statute, 18 U.S.C. violates application asserts equal only to protection prisoners; principles (2) the by length limiting of the its delay between certifying Sheradin as a sexually dangerous person and conducting the civil commitment hearing violated his right to due process; and (3) § 4248 levies an unconstitutional criminal punishment. arguments As is Sheradin foreclosed concedes, by our however, decision in each United of these States v. Timms, 664 F.3d 436 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 189 (2012). Sheradin next contends that the district court committed clear error in finding that he meets the requirements for civil commitment. improperly alleging weighed that the Sheradin asserts that the district court exhibits documents presented were by inaccurate the and Government, unverified. Additionally, Sheradin asserts that the district court erred in assigning credibility to the Government s expert witnesses. 3 As to these assertions, the district court s factual findings are reviewed for clear reviewed de novo. court s factual error, while its legal Hall, 664 F.3d at 462. findings are based conclusions are Where the district on its evaluation of conflicting expert testimony, we are especially reluctant to set aside its determinations. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Given Sheradin s concession that he previously engaged in child molestation, the Government was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Sheradin suffers from a serious mental disorder and that, as a result, he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released. 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(6). Because [e]valuating the credibility of experts and the value of their opinions is a function best committed to the district courts, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to accept the opinion of the Government s expert witnesses that Sheradin suffers from pedophilia and that he is at a high risk for recidivism upon release. as we have previously Hall, 664 F.3d at 464. explained, the Further, determination of a particular individual s risk of recidivism may rely not only on actuarial tests, but also on factors such as his participation in treatment, his ability to control his commitment to controlling his behavior. Id. 4 impulses, and his Because these are precisely the factors the district court considered in Sheradin s case, we find no clear error in its conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
