United States v. Jose De La Luz Perez
752 F.3d 398
4th Cir.2014Background
- Perez, a federal inmate, was certified as a sexually dangerous person under 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a) and subject to civil commitment to the Attorney General.
- The government filed the § 4248 certification while Perez was in BOP custody; the filing purportedly initiates proceedings and automatically stays release.
- Perez moved to dismiss arguing Rule 4 summons were not served; district court denied, finding service unnecessary where Perez received notice and no prejudice.
- A mandatory evidentiary hearing was conducted; Perez elected to proceed pro se but largely participated in absence, and three court-appointed/retained psychologists evaluated him.
- Experts unanimously diagnosed pedophilia as a serious mental illness and concluded Perez would have serious difficulty refraining from child molestation upon release.
- The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Perez is a sexually dangerous person and ordered civil commitment, which Perez challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of a Rule 4 summons is required for § 4248 proceedings. | Perez | Perez argues Rule 4 summons must be served; 4248 begins commitment without summons. | Summons not required; § 4248 initiates proceedings via certificate sent to the respondent. |
| Whether § 4248 proceedings confer personal jurisdiction without Rule 4 service. | Perez | Gov’t asserts custody and § 4248 process provide jurisdiction. | Personal jurisdiction exists; custody and § 4248 process suffice. |
| Whether the district court’s finding that Perez is sexually dangerous was clearly erroneous. | Perez | Gov’t presented substantial evidence of danger and volitional impairment. | No clear error; evidence supports a finding of sexual dangerousness. |
| Whether the government proved all three statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence. | Perez | Evidence shows prior molestation, current serious illness, and likelihood of future failure to refrain. | Yes; government met all three elements by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether equal protection or double jeopardy/punishment concerns invalidate § 4248 proceedings. | Perez | Timms forecloses these arguments; the statute survives constitutional scrutiny. | Foreclosed by this circuit’s Timms ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Heyer, 740 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2014) (holds that § 4248 stays release pending hearing; supports streamlined initiation)
- United States v. Caporale, 701 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2012) (mandates a hearing to determine if sexually dangerous under § 4248(a))
- United States v. Wood, 741 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2013) (requires clear and convincing evidence for § 4248 findings)
- United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 2012) (articulates the standard of review for § 4248 determinations)
- United States v. Timms, 664 F.3d 436 (4th Cir. 2012) (forecloses equal protection and punishment challenges to § 4248)