United States v. Andrew Sheradin , 672 F. App'x 316 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew D. Sheradin appeals the district court’s order
revoking his conditional release and remanding him 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 or
sexually explicit visual or auditory materials. 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 “is sexually dangerous to others in light of his
failure to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical,
psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment,” consistent
with 18 U.S.C. § 4248(f). 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
medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or
treatment.
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