United States v. Wetmore, 766 F. Supp. 2d 319

Wetmore is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person under 18 U.S.C. § 4248(d) after a four-year federal proceeding.
Two licensed psychologists—Dr. Prentky (appointed) and Dr. Phenix—opined Wetmore meets the statute’s criteria for sexual dangerousness; Wetmore did not offer his own expert testimony.
Wetmore has a long history of sexually molesting boys aged 11–15 and of possessing child pornography, with several prior convictions (1981, 1987, 2000) and federal charges arising from 1999–2000.
Evidence at FMC Devens included discovery of sexually explicit images of young boys beneath Wetmore’s bunk, disputed testimony about whether images were planted, and testimony from inmates about Wetmore’s sexual interests and conduct.
The court addressed Wetmore’s custody status, concluded the government properly certified Wetmore as in BOP custody when filing the petition, and ordered civil commitment with treatment plans and annual reporting.
The court also rejected Wetmore’s retroactivity challenge under the Adam Walsh Act, citing Hendricks v. Kansas and related Supreme Court precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wetmore meets the Act’s three elements to be committed.	United States proves first element (child molestation) and second (serious mental disorder) and third (dangerousness).	Wetmore challenges the sufficiency of the ‘serious mental disorder’ and/dangerousness findings.	Yes; the government proved all three elements by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether paraphilia NOS with hebephilia can be a serious mental disorder under the Act.	Carta supports treating hebephilia NOS as a serious mental disorder.	Not expressly addressed; Wetmore argues against that characterization.	Yes; paraphilia NOS (hebephilia) can constitute a serious mental disorder under the Act.
Whether Wetmore would have serious difficulty refraining from molestation if released.	Experts agree Wetmore would reoffend; risk factors and dynamic factors support high risk.	No direct, unrebutted evidence showing inability to refrain if released.	Yes; Wetmore would have serious difficulty refraining from future molestation.
Whether the Act is impermissibly retroactive as applied to Wetmore.			Not retroactive; Hendricks precedent applies.
Whether Wetmore was in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the time of certification.	Wetmore may challenge custody credits; government must prove BOP custody.	No constitutional right to collateral review; credits addressed under 18 U.S.C. § 3585.	Yes; Wetmore was properly in BOP custody when certification was filed.

Hendricks v. Kansas, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (retroactivity in sexually dangerousness commitment upheld; mental abnormality sufficient for commitment)
Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (no right to collaterally attack prior convictions used for sentencing enhancements in similar contexts)
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (requires proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior for civil commitment)
United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (credit for time served; no double credit under § 3585(b))
United States v. Mills, 501 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2007) (no double credit for time credited against state sentence)