## Facts

- Todd Carta pleaded guilty in federal court to child-pornography offenses and received a sentence of five years’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
- Before his anticipated release, the Bureau of Prisons certified Carta as a “sexually dangerous person” and initiated civil-commitment proceedings under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247–4248.
- In an earlier phase, a district court concluded the government had not shown that Carta’s diagnosis—paraphilia not otherwise specified characterized by hebephilia—qualified as a “serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder” under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(6).
- On the first appeal, the court of appeals reversed and held the diagnosis was legally capable of satisfying the “serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder” element, remanding for further proceedings.
- After remand, the district court held a seven-day bench trial with extensive expert testimony and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Carta was a “sexually dangerous person” under § 4248 and ordered civil commitment.
- Carta appealed, challenging reliance on the diagnosis as a qualifying condition and disputing the finding that he would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.

## Issues

1. Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred re-litigation of whether paraphilia NOS characterized by hebephilia can qualify as a “serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder” under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(6).
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that, as a result of Carta’s condition, he would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released, as required by § 4247(a)(6).

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the civil-commitment order.
- The court held that its prior ruling established that the diagnosis could qualify under § 4247(a)(6), and law of the case foreclosed re-litigation of that legal question absent extraordinary circumstances.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in finding the “serious difficulty refraining” element satisfied based on the full record, including Carta’s history and expert testimony.
- The court emphasized deferential appellate review of fact findings and credibility determinations in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 4248, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person (1) has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation, (2) suffers from a “serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder,” and (3) as a result would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.
- Law-of-the-case doctrine generally binds courts and parties to issues resolved earlier in the same litigation; disagreement among experts about a diagnosis typically affects evidentiary weight, not whether the diagnosis can satisfy the statute as a matter of law.
- Appellate review of district-court findings on mental condition and future risk in § 4248 proceedings is for clear error; an appellate court does not reweigh conflicting expert testimony where the trial court’s view is plausible on the whole record.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld Carta’s civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Act, holding that prior appellate rulings foreclosed renewed attacks on whether his diagnosis could satisfy the statute and that the district court’s dangerousness finding—based on a detailed trial record—was not clearly erroneous.


United States v. Carta, 690 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012)