Opinion ID: 1040975
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sexual Dangerousness

Text: On appeal, Volungus does not contest the district court's finding that the government presented clear and convincing evidence to establish that he has attempted to engage in child molestation and he suffers from a serious mental disorder, pedophilia. Instead his arguments focus on the third prong of the sexually dangerous test, namely the court's conclusion that as result of his pedophilia, Volungus would have serious difficulty in refraining from . . . child molestation if released. Volungus maintains that his commitment cannot rest only on his mental disorder and fantasies about having sex with children. He claims that he has demonstrated an ability to refrain from molesting children, that he is able to control his potential dangerousness, and that unlike other individuals confined under the Adam Walsh Act, he has not -12- committed numerous hands-on offenses with children.4 As such, Volungus asserts that the district court erred by focusing on his predisposition to view child pornography and fantasize about having sex with children when it should have focused on the likelihood that he would commit future physical acts of molestation. We find Volungus's arguments that the court erred unconvincing. In our view, the district court possessed ample evidence to support a finding that Volungus's pedophilia would cause him serious difficulty in refraining from sexual violence or child molestation in the future. Volungus has readily admitted, on multiple occasions, that he is unable to control his attraction to prepubescent children. The district court reasonably concluded that this lack 4 Volungus also argues that he has not actually had any hands-on offenses as a result of his pedophilia, as the incident with Sarah involved a fourteen-year-old, non-prepubescent girl. Volungus claims that pedophilia only encompasses sexual desires and behaviors with prepubescent children (generally aged 13 and younger), and points out that all the experts agreed that his seeking out Sarah was not a manifestation of his pedophilia. To the extent that Volungus argues that this makes him statutorily ineligible for commitment, we do not find his arguments persuasive. The second and third requirements for commitment under the Adam Walsh Act are directly linked (the statute requires a finding that an individual has a serious mental disorder, and as a result of this disorder, would have difficulty refraining from child molestation). However, the plain language of the statute indicates that the first requirement is completely independent, and imposes no precondition that the predicate offense have occurred as a result of the respondent's disorder. 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a)(5)-(6). As such, regardless of whether Volungus's offense with Sarah resulted from his pedophilia, we hold it was sufficient to satisfy the statute's first requirement. -13- of volitional control was clearly evidenced by the fact that Volungus -- while on supervised release, the very time he was most likely to be caught -- downloaded large amounts of child pornography, had prohibited contact with his niece, and wrote graphic letters to a fellow pedophile about his plans to engage in sexual acts with children. The court possessed proof that either Volungus's sex offender treatment was not working or that he was not participating in it sincerely; Volungus was actively downloading child pornography and communicating with a fellow pedophile about having sex with children and producing child pornography while he was attending treatment sessions. Moreover, Volungus, while on supervised release, continued his attempts to contact minor females by visiting chat rooms similar to the one in which he met IndyGirl. The district court reasonably found that such attempts to contact minors took Volungus a step beyond passive consumption of child pornography and into the realm of affirmative encounters with minors.5 Additionally, the district court found that Volungus suffered from a long and persistent trajectory of obsession with child pornography and sex with children. Volungus obsessively viewed and downloaded child pornography, masturbated to it, then 5 The district court was careful to limit its finding, noting that Volungus's attempts to contact minors like facialgirl, while an affirmative encounter, did not qualify as a hands-on offense of actual or attempted child molestation. -14- used the internet to seek real child victims. Indeed, Volungus's attempt to meet Sarah for sex, his chats with facialgirl, whom he believed to be a fourteen-year-old female, and his reported conversations with a man in Canada about meeting the man's eightyear-old daughter for sex can all be viewed as manifestations of this trajectory which culminated in Volungus's conviction for attempted molestation.6 The district court also noted the speed with which Volungus moved from what he claimed was his first introduction to child pornography in the Spring of 1998 to his attempted molestation of Sarah just a few months later in August of 1998. The evidence suggested that Volungus could not break this cycle, as shortly after he began supervised release, he once again began downloading child pornography and visiting chat rooms like Youth and Beauty. Accordingly, we find that the court had a reasonable basis for concluding that Volungus's continuing behavior of obsessive downloading and viewing of child pornography and seeking online contact with children would cause him serious difficulty in refraining from child molestation in the future. To the extent that the court valued the opinion of the government's witness, Dr. Phenix, who testified that Volungus's 6 In our analysis, we do not treat Volungus's online behavior as actual or attempted child molestation under the statute. However, we do consider this conduct, alongside Volungus's other actions, as relevant to the district court's proper determination of Volungus's sexual dangerousness. Here, these interactions demonstrate Volungus's efforts to seek out real children for sex after downloading and viewing large amounts of child pornography. -15- pedophilia presented such a volitional impairment that he would have serious difficulty refraining from molestation, over that of the other experts who testified that he could refrain from molestation, we find no error. See Shields, 649 F.3d 78, 90 (1st Cir. 2011) (holding where two testifying experts interpreted [respondent's] child pornography offense as a sign of ongoing deviance rather than improved impulse control . . . it was entirely reasonable for the court to credit their testimony over [his] expert's opinion). It is not our place to re-weigh the credibility of witnesses, United States v. Hahn, 17 F.3d 502, 508 (1st Cir. 1994), or to determine the weight accorded to expert witness, Seahorse Marine Supplies, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co., 295 F.3d 68, 81 (1st Cir. 2002). Volungus's challenge to the district court's findings emphasizes the fact that his criminal history includes a single hands-on offense, attempted child molestation, dated more that ten years ago.7 He also directs us to expert testimony that he might have serious difficulty refraining from viewing child pornography but would not have such difficulty in refraining from 7 Additionally, Volungus makes much of a list of cases where respondents were civilly committed under the Act after they had committed numerous contact offenses, which he contrasts with his single attempted molestation conviction. However, this is not persuasive evidence that Volungus himself should not be committed. Indeed, these cases only demonstrate that individuals with lengthier records than Volungus have been committed under the Act, not that those in similar circumstances to Volungus are ineligible for commitment. -16- child molestation. We cannot, however, state that the court clearly erred by placing more weight on the evidence of Volungus's sexual obsession and the limitations on his volitional control. United States v. Batista-Polanco, 927 F.2d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 1991) (it is ultimately the responsibility of the factfinder to decide among reasonable interpretations of the evidence). Given Volungus's history, failed treatment, correspondence with Gallardo, and inability to abstain from sexually deviant behaviors at the very moments when he was most likely to get caught, we believe the determination that he lacked volitional control is well supported by a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Ultimately, while actual or attempted child molestation offenses may be telling evidence of just how sexually dangerous an individual is, this is not the only type of evidence that speaks to this trait. We are of the opinion that sexual dangerousness requires an individualized determination that cannot rest solely on the number of offenses committed or the timing of those offenses. A court could reasonably conclude that an individual who has committed multiple offenses but successfully completed a rehabilitation program may be less dangerous than someone who has committed one offense but exhibits a perpetual desire or propensity to commit more offenses, even while in treatment. In this case, the district court reasonably concluded that Volungus either made little effort to sincerely engage in a -17- sex offender treatment program or that the treatment program was ineffective. Volungus went as far as to discuss planning trips to have sex with children with another pedophile while undergoing this treatment. He continued to collect or draw child pornography even while on supervised release and in custody. He also had unsupervised contact with a five-year-old in violation of the terms of his supervised release. The evidence supports the district court's conclusion that Volungus may have been convicted of a single attempted molestation offense, but his obsession with child pornography, his desire to have sex with children, and his willingness to seek out children online have persisted without any interruption or signs of improvement. In light of these circumstances, we cannot find that the district court clearly erred in determining that Volungus was a sexually dangerous person subject to commitment.