United States v. Carta, 690 F.3d 1

Carta pled guilty to federal child pornography charges in 2002 and was sentenced to five years in prison and three years of supervised release.
Before scheduled release, BOP certified him as a 'sexually dangerous person' under 18 U.S.C. § 4248 and began civil-commitment proceedings.
A 'sexually dangerous person' requires clear and convincing evidence of a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder likely to cause recidivism if released.
Carta II held that paraphilia NOS with a hebephilia descriptor can satisfy the serious-mental-illness prong; the district court then conducted a supplemental inquiry on remand.
A seven-day trial on remand resulted in a district-court ruling in the government's favor; carta challenged the district court’s factual and legal conclusions.
This court affirms, applying the law-of-the-case mandate and Crane-based standard for 'serious difficulty refraining.'

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does paraphilia NOS with hebephilia satisfy the 'serious mental illness' element?	Carta II established this as satisfied by the diagnosis and history.	Carta contends the diagnosis is unreliable or not covered.	Yes; paraphilia NOS with hebephilia satisfies the element.
Is the mandate law-of-the-case bar on relitigation applicable to the serious-mental-illness ruling on remand?	Carta argues for reopening in light of new evidence.	The prior ruling binds on remand absent exception.	Mandate and law-of-the-case doctrines foreclose re-litigation; continued binding.
Did the district court clearly err in finding serious mental condition after considering additional evidence?	Carta claims the evidence supports a different weight.	Court reasonably weighed expert testimony and evidence.	No clear error; district court’s weighing stands.
Whether the district court properly applied Crane’s 'serious difficulty in refraining' standard.	Phenix’s testimony establishes lack of control in conduct.	Other experts criticized Phenix; no uniform lack of control shown.	Court adopts Crane-based standard and finds sufficient difficulty.

United States v. Carta, 592 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (law-of-the-case governing serious mental illness element on remand)
United States v. Matthews, 643 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2011) (law-of-the-case mandates following prior appellate decision)
Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1983) (mandate-rule framework for applying law-of-the-case)
United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148 (1st Cir. 1991) (mandate-rule limited reopenings on remand)
United States v. Wallace, 573 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2009) (exceptional circumstances for reopening remand decisions)
United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247 (1st Cir. 1993) (limited discretion to reopen under mandate rule)
United States v. D'Andrea, 648 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing factual sufficiency on appeal)
Shields v. United States, 649 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (deferring to trial court credibility determinations)
Hunt v. United States, 643 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D. Mass. 2009) (post-sentencing recidivism as a factor in commitment decisions)
Adelson v. Hananel, 652 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2011) (reviewing court's discretion in factual-issue resolution)