Full text
United States v. Charles Yates
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7204 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7204
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES YATES,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-hc-02073-D)
Submitted: August 25, 2022 Decided: September 7, 2022
Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Lawrence H. Brenner, BRENNER & BRENNER, PA, Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Holly P. Pratesi, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7204 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Charles Yates appeals the district court’s order revoking his conditional release and
remanding him to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“Adam Walsh Act”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247-4248. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.
“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo.” United States v. Bell, 884 F.3d 500, 507 (4th Cir. 2018). “A finding
is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. Bolander, 722 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in
light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though
convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence
differently.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Adam Walsh Act provides the following regarding the revocation of conditional
release:
The director of a facility responsible for administering a regimen imposed on a person conditionally discharged under subsection (e) shall notify the Attorney General and the court having jurisdiction over the person of any failure of the person to comply with the regimen. Upon such notice, or upon other probable cause to believe that the person has failed to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, the person may be arrested, and, upon arrest, shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the court having jurisdiction over him. The court shall, after a hearing, determine whether the person should be remanded to a suitable facility on the ground that he is sexually dangerous to others in
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7204 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/07/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
light of the failure to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.
18 U.S.C. § 4248(f). In view of the statute, we conclude that the district court did not clearly
err in concluding that Yates failed to comply with the prescribed regimen and that he was
sexually dangerous in light of this failure.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.