PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6338

GERALD WAYNE TIMMS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent – Appellee.

ERICA JOAN HASHIMOTO,

Court-Assigned Amicus Counsel.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:21−hc−02145−BO)

Argued: October 24, 2023 Decided: February 14, 2024

Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by published opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion in which Judge Thacker and Judge Keenan joined.

ARGUED: Erica Joan Hashimoto, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Court-Appointed Amicus Counsel. Katharine Paige O’Hale, USCA4 Appeal: 22-6338 Doc: 45 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 10

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Tara S. Mahesh, Student Counsel, Edward McAuliffe, Student Counsel, Audrey Hope Sheils, Student Counsel, Appellate Litigation Program, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Court-Appointed Amicus Counsel. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6338 Doc: 45 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 3 of 10

QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

After completing his sentence for a child pornography conviction, Gerald Wayne

Timms was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person under the statutory

provisions enacted as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18

U.S.C. §§ 4247–48. While civilly committed, Timms was convicted of and sentenced for

two separate federal crimes and served prison terms for those sentences. His civil

commitment continued following those criminal sentences. Timms argues it should not

have. So, he petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his civil

commitment terminated when his first criminal sentence began, that certain conditions of

his criminal confinement violate the requirements of the Act and that applying the Act to

him violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed his petition for failure to

exhaust, reasoning that Timms should have raised these issues in his civil commitment

proceedings. Timms appeals that order.

Timms’ appeal requires us to decide what happens if a person civilly committed

under the Act as a sexually dangerous person commits a criminal offense and is sentenced

to a prison term. 1 Does such a criminal conviction and resulting imprisonment terminate

the civil commitment? At the conclusion of the criminal sentence, must the person be

released unless the government recertifies him as sexually dangerous and obtains a new

order of civil commitment? In short, the answer to both questions is no. Under the Act, a

1 We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over the final judgment of the district court denying Timms’ petition. We review the denial of a § 2241 petition de novo. Yi v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 412 F.3d 526, 530 (4th Cir. 2005).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6338 Doc: 45 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: