UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7204 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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: 2 of 3
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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7204 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/07/2022 Pg: 3 of 3