Certification and Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Persons (Program Statement 5394.01)

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Field	Value
Program Statement	5394.01, CN-1
Subject	Certification and Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Persons
Effective / current edition	Change Notice 1 dated February 27, 2025, amending the Program Statement dated February 1, 2016 (PS 5394.01 at pp. 1, 3)
Change notices	CN-1 (2/27/2025). It changes two words. See What changed.
Supersedes	The Program Statement names nothing it supersedes. CN-1 amends the 2/1/2016 edition rather than replacing it.
Governing statute	18 U.S.C. § 4248, enacted by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-248. Definitions at 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(5)–(6); hearing rights, examinations, annual reports and discharge motions at § 4247(b)–(e), (h); the incompetency route at § 4241(d); the parallel dangerousness statute at § 4246.
28 C.F.R. anchor	28 C.F.R. part 549, subpart H — “Civil Commitment of a Sexually Dangerous Person,” §§ 549.90, 549.91, 549.92, 549.93, 549.94, 549.95. Six sections, no others. Conditions of confinement run on the pretrial rules at 28 C.F.R. part 551 (PS 5394.01 at p. 25).
Related BP forms	BP-A1044, Notice of Psychological Evaluation — the only form the Program Statement names (PS 5394.01 at pp. 14, 29). BOP does not post it publicly.
Official PDF	bop.gov/policy/progstat/5394_001_cn-1.pdf

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-06.

Program Statement 5394.01 is the Bureau of Prisons’ internal procedure for a federal court process: certifying someone in federal custody as a “sexually dangerous person” under 18 U.S.C. § 4248, which — once the certificate is filed with the district court — stops the scheduled release until a judge decides whether to civilly commit the person. It also sets out the Commitment and Treatment Program (CTP), the secure treatment unit where people who are certified and committed are held.

Two things about that are worth saying at the very start. First, this is not a prison administrative decision that gets sorted out with a grievance. A § 4248 certification opens a case in federal district court, and the person has a lawyer, a hearing, the right to an expert examiner, and a right to appeal. Second, the Bureau’s internal screening happens months before anything is filed, largely on paper, and largely without the person knowing it is under way. Those two facts together are why this page exists. If someone in your family is serving a federal sentence with any history of sexual offense conduct, the useful time to understand this process is long before a certificate exists — and our companion page on sex offender treatment programs in the Bureau of Prisons explains the SOMP and SOTP programs whose records feed into it.

The rule itself: civil commitment

Everything transcribed below comes from the Bureau’s own text at bop.gov/policy/progstat/5394_001_cn-1.pdf, with the page anchor for each passage. The Program Statement uses typography to distinguish regulation from staff instruction — its footer reads “Federal Regulations from 28 CFR: this type. Implementing instructions: this type” — and each regulation block is introduced by its own section number. Where a passage below is regulation, it is labeled as such and the C.F.R. section is linked; every one of those was pulled independently from eCFR and matched against the Program Statement’s reproduction.

Who gets reviewed, and who does not

The regulation sets the outer boundary. 28 C.F.R. § 549.90(b), reproduced at PS 5394.01 at p. 4:

This subpart applies to persons in Bureau custody, including those:

(1) Under a term of imprisonment;

(2) For whom all criminal charges have been dismissed solely for reasons relating to the person’s mental condition; or

(3) In Bureau custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).

The Program Statement then narrows and lists. PS 5394.01 at p. 4, inmates under a term of imprisonment “who are subject to review for potential certification as sexually dangerous persons include”:

• Federal offenders.
• District of Columbia Code felony offenders.
• Treaty transfer cases.
• Inmates serving concurrent Federal and state sentences.
• Inmates subject to detainers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other Federal, state, or local authorities.

PS 5394.01 at p. 5, “[c]ategories of inmates who do not require review for potential certification as sexually dangerous persons include”:

• Pretrial inmates (except inmates found incompetent and unrestorable under section 4241(d) and inmates whose charges were dismissed due to a mental condition).
• Persons held as material witnesses.
• Persons held on civil contempt orders.
• Persons released on bond.
• Inmates serving only state sentences in Bureau custody.
• Inmates serving only military terms of imprisonment in Bureau custody.
• Inmates in Bureau custody being held solely as ICE detainees.
• Persons housed at Residential Reentry Centers (RRC) as a condition of supervised release.

Those two lists are descriptions of who is screened. They are not predictions about anyone, and nothing on this page should be read as saying that any particular person will or will not be certified.

The timing — when the review begins

This is the number most people come looking for, and the Program Statement states it twice, in two slightly different ways. PS 5394.01 at p. 8, transcribed verbatim:

DSCC staff identify newly sentenced inmates having a history of unlawful sexual conduct, and refer to the SOCRB those inmates who are between eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) months from their projected release date (PRD), unless the inmate’s total sentence does not exceed eighteen (18) months, in which case their review will take place immediately (review period).

Attachment A, PS 5394.01 at p. 31, phrases the same trigger more simply:

Inmates with a qualifying Walsh Act CMA assignment (WA W CONV or WA NO CONV) have the following Walsh Act CMA assignment added when the inmate is at 18 months from release, or immediately, for cases with less than 18 months to serve.

Two other timing provisions matter as much. PS 5394.01 at p. 9 directs that “[a]t every Program Review, the unit team monitors the inmate’s conduct and reviews any new information to determine if a change to the inmate’s Walsh history CMA is necessary,” and that the Sex Offender Release Coordinator “ensures that any additional information that could bear on the inmate’s Walsh review status is forwarded to the SOCRB within the review period.” So the file is not frozen at sentencing — incident reports, Discipline Hearing Officer reports, SIS reports and detainer information can all be added later.

And the halfway-house bar, same page, transcribed exactly:

To the extent possible, the SOCRB’s review process should not interfere with the institution’s routine release preparation. However, an inmate may not be placed in an RRC until the SOCRB has concluded its review of the inmate and approved him/her for release.

That single sentence is the most common way this process first becomes visible: a halfway house date that does not move, with no explanation given.

The SENTRY codes — how to see this in the file

The whole screening system runs on five-to-nine-character case management assignments in SENTRY, the Bureau’s records system. These are the codes that show whether a review is happening. Transcribed from Attachment A, PS 5394.01 at pp. 31–32.

Entered by DSCC classification or institution staff:

SENTRY CMA	The Program Statement’s own text	When it is applied
WA NO HIST	“NO WALSH ACT OFFENSE HISTORY”	“applied when there is no evidence of a criminal sexual offense (i.e., arrest, charge, or conviction) in the inmate’s criminal history.”
WA NO CONV	“WALSH ACT HIST – NO CONVICTION”	“applied when there is evidence of a criminal sexual offense (e.g., arrest or charge) that did not result in a conviction (e.g., allegations only, dismissed charge, nolle prossed, or acquittal).”
WA W CONV	“WALSH ACT HIST – WITH CONVICTION”	“applied when there is evidence of a criminal sexual offense that resulted in a conviction. What is of relevance is the offense conduct, not the actual conviction. In other words, a ‘non-sexual’ conviction resulting from a plea agreement (e.g., an offender who pleads guilty to an assault but committed rape, or a burglary conviction that involved a sexual assault) would be captured under this assignment.”
WA REFER	“REFERRED TO CERT REVIEW PANEL”	“The inmate has been referred to the SOCRB for certification review.”

Entered by the Sex Offender Certification Review Branch for anyone carrying WA REFER:

SENTRY CMA	The Program Statement’s own text	What it signifies
WA NOT CER	“WALSH ACT – NOT CERTIFIED”	“entered when an inmate is not certified as a sexually dangerous person and has been approved for release.”
WA TRANSFR	“WALSH ACT – REQUIRES TRANSFER”	“entered when an inmate is transferred for certification review purposes.”
WA PRE-CRT	“WALSH ACT – NEEDS PRECERT EVAL”	“The inmate has been referred for a precertification evaluation and is awaiting the final decision by the Certification Review Panel.”
WA CERTIFIED	“WALSH ACT – CIV COMT CERTIFIED”	“The U.S. Attorney’s Office has filed an official certification petition with the Clerk of the Court, and the inmate has been certified as a ‘Sexually Dangerous Person.'”

Two of these codes are spelled differently in the body of the Program Statement than in Attachment A. Section 6, PS 5394.01 at p. 17, uses “WA NOT CERT” and “WA CERTIFD”; Attachment A uses “WA NOT CER” and “WA CERTIFIED.” Section 3.e at p. 11 also refers to “WA CONV,” where Attachment A has “WA W CONV.” If you are asking a case manager to read a code out of SENTRY, expect the field to show something close to but not identical to what the policy prints — the codes themselves are what appear on the printout. Our page on SENTRY explains what that system holds.

The review stages, and who decides at each

This is the architecture. Each row is the Program Statement’s own assignment of a decision to an actor, with the page it appears on.

Stage	What happens at it	Who decides	Pin-cite
1. Identification (DSCC)	Classification staff “review available documentation, which typically includes the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), the Judgment and Commitment Order (J&C), and the Statement of Reasons (SOR), for any history of unlawful sexual conduct” and enter the Walsh CMA. A DSCC Senior Designator enters WA REFER.	DSCC classification staff; DSCC Senior Designator	p. 8
2. Identification (institution)	Wardens designate a Sex Offender Release Coordinator (SORC), “ordinarily the Case Management Coordinator (CMC),” to keep each person’s Walsh CMA correct and to refer within the review period.	Warden designates; SORC and unit team execute	pp. 8–9
3. Element 1 screening	Screening of “whether his/her conduct may qualify him/her for potential certification” — that is, evidence of sexually violent conduct or child molestation. “Inmates whose conduct is determined not to meet Element 1 require no further review and are cleared to release.”	“a Correctional Program Specialist” in the SOCRB	p. 12
4. Actuarial screening (limited categories)	Actuarial risk assessment in three narrow categories. “If the risk assessment indicates the inmate is at low risk for sexual recidivism, no further review is required and the inmate is approved for release. If the assessment indicates the inmate may be at moderate or high risk, the case is referred to a SOCRB Clinical Psychologist.”	Correctional Program Specialists	pp. 12–13
5. Preliminary case review	Case summary plus, ordinarily, an actuarial risk assessment. “Inmates clinically determined to be at low or moderate risk by SOCRB Clinical Psychologists generally do not require further review and are approved for release. Inmates believed to be at higher risk are referred to the CRP.”	SOCRB Clinical Psychologists	p. 13
6. Full panel review	The CRP “reviews each element associated with the statutory/regulatory definition.” If it “is able to determine from the available information that the inmate, clinically or legally, does not meet at least one of the required elements for certification, the CRP discontinues review and approves the inmate for release.”	The Certification Review Panel, which “ordinarily includes” a Chairperson (the SOCRB Administrator or designee), one or more SOCRB Clinical Psychologists, and an Attorney from the Office of General Counsel	pp. 13–14
7. Precertification evaluation	“[A] forensic psychological evaluation requested by the CRP, which is conducted by a psychologist with specialized training in the assessment of sex offenders.” Ordered only “[w]hen the CRP lacks sufficient information to render an informed decision on the diagnostic or risk elements.”	CRP orders it; a Bureau or Bureau-contracted psychologist performs it and reports to the CRP	p. 14
8. Certification decision	“For each case, CRP members discuss the clinical, legal, and other relevant issues in determining whether or not to certify.”	The CRP. Note p. 3: “The Director’s authority to certify inmates as sexually dangerous persons is delegated to the Chairperson of the CRP.”	pp. 3, 17
9. Filing in court	A declaration titled “Certification of a Sexually Dangerous Person” is signed by the CRP Chairperson or Acting Chairperson and sent to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which “files the certification and an accompanying petition in the district court on behalf of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.”	CRP Chairperson signs; U.S. Attorney’s Office files	p. 17
10. Hearing and decision	A judicial commitment proceeding under § 4248.	The United States District Court	18 U.S.C. § 4248(c)–(d)

The three elements the panel reviews

PS 5394.01 at p. 15, transcribed:

(1) Behavioral Element: “Engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation.” Although there has been some preliminary review of this element during the earlier stages of the certification review, the CRP reviews records documenting the inmate’s history of sexually violent conduct or child molestation. The CRP evaluates the information to determine whether it is likely legally sufficient to prove this element by clear and convincing evidence in a judicial commitment proceeding.

(2) Diagnostic Element: “A serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder.” The CRP determines whether the inmate has a diagnosable condition relevant to his/her offending behavior.

(3) Risk Element: “Serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation.”

Two clarifications from the earlier screening stage are worth having exactly, both PS 5394.01 at p. 12:

A charge or conviction for a sexual offense is not necessary as long as the conduct underlying the offense indicates having engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation.

and:

Conversely, a charge or conviction for a sex offense does not categorically constitute having engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation. For example, a history only of possession, receipt, or transmittal of child pornography ordinarily does not constitute having engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation. While such conduct could be viewed as exploitation within the meaning of the definition of child molestation, civil commitment is intended for the most serious offenders having more direct victim contact. Sexual misconduct occurring in a correctional or other confinement facility may be considered in evaluating the existence of qualifying Element 1 conduct.

The word doing the work there is “ordinarily.” The Program Statement states a general expectation about a category of conduct; it does not create an exemption for anyone.

The definitions — regulation, quoted from the Code

These four definitions are regulation, not policy. They are reproduced in the Program Statement at pp. 6–7 and are set out here from the Code of Federal Regulations itself.

Regulation	Verbatim text
28 C.F.R. § 549.91	“For purposes of this subpart, a ‘sexually dangerous person’ is a person: (a) Who has engaged or attempted to engage in: (1) Sexually violent conduct; or (2) Child molestation; and (b) Has been assessed as sexually dangerous to others by a Bureau mental health professional.”
28 C.F.R. § 549.92	“‘[S]exually violent conduct’ includes any unlawful conduct of a sexual nature with another person (‘the victim’) that involves: (a) The use or threatened use of force against the victim; (b) Threatening or placing the victim in fear that the victim, or any other person, will be harmed; (c) Rendering the victim unconscious and thereby engaging in conduct of a sexual nature with the victim; (d) Administering to the victim, by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of the victim, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and thereby substantially impairing the ability of the victim to appraise or control conduct; or (e) Engaging in such conduct with a victim who is incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct, or physically or mentally incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that conduct.” (transcribed from PS 5394.01 at p. 6)
28 C.F.R. § 549.93	“‘[C]hild molestation’ includes any unlawful conduct of a sexual nature with, or sexual exploitation of, a person under the age of 18 years.” (transcribed from PS 5394.01 at p. 7)
28 C.F.R. § 549.94	“For purposes of this subpart, ‘sexually dangerous to others’ means that a person suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a result of which he or she would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.”

The statute uses substantially the same words. 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(5): “‘sexually dangerous person’ means a person who has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation and who is sexually dangerous to others.” Section 4247(a)(6): “‘sexually dangerous to others’ … means that the person suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a result of which he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.”

And the evidence the third element turns on is itself set out in the Code. 28 C.F.R. § 549.95, verbatim:

In determining whether a person will have “serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released,” Bureau mental health professionals may consider, but are not limited to, evidence:

(a) Of the person’s repeated contact, or attempted contact, with one or more victims of sexually violent conduct or child molestation;

(b) Of the person’s denial of or inability to appreciate the wrongfulness, harmfulness, or likely consequences of engaging or attempting to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation;

(c) Established through interviewing and testing of the person or through other risk assessment tools that are relied upon by mental health professionals;

(d) Established by forensic indicators of inability to control conduct, such as: (1) Offending while under supervision; (2) Engaging in offense(s) when likely to get caught; (3) Statement(s) of intent to re-offend; or (4) Admission of inability to control behavior; or

(e) Indicating successful completion of, or failure to successfully complete, a sex offender treatment program.

Read subsections (b) and (e) together and the practical tension is obvious: denial can be evidence, and so can the record of a treatment program in which disclosures are made. The Program Statement addresses that directly under “Legal Considerations,” PS 5394.01 at p. 16: the CRP “evaluates the nature of any admissions made by the inmate, the context in which they were made, and the extent to which they are relied upon in proving one or more elements for certification,” and “[a]dmissions documented for an official proceeding or investigation where the inmate had an opportunity to contest factual assertions (e.g., Presentence Investigation Report [PSR], Statement of Reasons [SOR], court transcript) may be more probative than admissions made in a clinical treatment setting (e.g., Sex Offender Treatment Program or Sex Offender Management Program).” The panel also weighs, in the policy’s own words, the “Burden of Proof” — “the likelihood that the government will be able to prove all three elements by clear and convincing evidence” — and the “Legal Landscape,” meaning “case law, statutes, court orders, and other legally binding precedents that affect the Bureau’s operation under section 4248.”

That is why the accuracy of a presentence report matters years after sentencing, and why unresolved factual disputes in a PSR do not go away when the sentence is imposed.

The notice the person receives

There is exactly one, and it comes at stage 7. PS 5394.01 at p. 14:

When the CRP refers a case for a precertification evaluation, SOCRB staff notify field staff of the need to coordinate the inmate’s transfer to a facility designated by the Bureau to conduct the assessment. The mental health professional conducting the precertification evaluation attempts to interview the inmate for the evaluation and gives the inmate notice regarding the nature and purpose of the evaluation (BP-A1044, Notice of Psychological Evaluation). If the inmate refuses to participate, he/she is informed that the evaluation will be conducted with or without his/her participation.

Nothing in the Program Statement provides for notice at stages 1 through 6. A person may be screened, actuarially assessed, reviewed by a clinical psychologist and sent to the full panel without any document being handed to them. The first tangible signals are usually indirect: a SENTRY code that a case manager can read out, a transfer, or a halfway-house date that will not move. BP-A1044 is not among the forms BOP posts publicly, so there is no way to read it in advance from outside.

The stay of release — the sentence that changes everything

PS 5394.01 at p. 17, transcribed:

Presently, FCI Butner is the designated institution for inmates who are referred for precertification evaluations and certified and committed as sexually dangerous persons; the certification is transmitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Other sites may be activated as needed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office files the certification and an accompanying petition in the district court on behalf of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. The filing of the certification stays the release of the inmate pending the outcome of a judicial commitment proceeding under section 4248.

That is the Bureau restating the statute. The statute itself, 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a), provides:

In relation to a person who is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, or who has been committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to section 4241(d), or against whom all criminal charges have been dismissed solely for reasons relating to the mental condition of the person, the Attorney General or any individual authorized by the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons may certify that the person is a sexually dangerous person, and transmit the certificate to the clerk of the court for the district in which the person is confined. … A certificate filed under this subsection shall stay the release of the person pending completion of procedures contained in this section.

No judge has to approve the stay for it to take effect. Filing does it.

Annual review, discharge, and the CTP’s own review intervals

Once someone is committed, the review obligations are statutory and the Program Statement implements them. PS 5394.01 at p. 27:

Per 18 U.S.C. § 4247(e), the CTP conducts an annual examination of each committed inmate’s progress and assesses the need for continued commitment. A report of the examination is submitted to the court of commitment within one year of the inmate’s initial commitment and every year thereafter.

PS 5394.01 at p. 28 adds the route that belongs to the person rather than the Bureau:

In addition, counsel for the inmate or his/her legal guardian may, at any time during the commitment (except 180 days directly after a court determination that the person should continue to be committed), file with the court that ordered the commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether he/she should be discharged. This filing would necessitate either an evaluation or an addendum to a prior evaluation that was completed within a reasonable time frame.

That mirrors 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h), which provides that counsel or a legal guardian may file such a motion “[r]egardless of whether the director of the facility in which a person is committed has filed a certificate,” subject to the same 180-day bar.

The Bureau-side discharge route runs through § 12 of the Program Statement, at p. 28: on a conditional discharge under § 4248(e), “the Warden files a certificate accompanied by a treatment discharge summary and forensic evaluation report that supports conditional release with the appropriate court”; for an unconditional discharge, the same filing supports release without conditions. In both cases CTP clinical staff consult the CTP Administrator and legal staff, and the CTP Administrator presents the recommendation to the Warden.

The other intervals inside the CTP, all transcribed:

Interval	The Program Statement’s own words	Pin-cite
Treatment progress reviews	“Treatment Progress Reviews, beginning about 180 days after the date of the Treatment Plan, with Progress Reviews to occur about every 180 days.”	p. 24
Privilege-level review	“Review of the CTP inmate’s progress and LPS assignment will be conducted on at least a quarterly basis.”	p. 24
Contact with people who decline treatment	“Clinical Treatment Services staff meet at least quarterly with inmates who refuse treatment in an effort to motivate them to participate.”	p. 22
Before suspension from treatment	“Inmates must be given at least one attempt at a formal intervention before suspension.”	p. 23
Annual examination	“within one year of the inmate’s initial commitment and every year thereafter.”	p. 27
Bar on a discharge motion	“except 180 days directly after a court determination that the person should continue to be committed”	p. 28

Two more provisions that shape daily life in the CTP. Treatment is voluntary — PS 5394.01 at p. 22: “Participation in psychotherapy and other therapeutic activities is voluntary.” But the same paragraph continues: “The inmate’s participation in treatment activities will be monitored by CTP staff and reported to the Court, with regard to the inmate’s mental condition and need for continued commitment, in accordance with Sections 4247(e) and 4248.” And re-entry into treatment after a withdrawal or suspension runs on the ordinary cop-out: someone “may reapply for readmission through an Inmate Request to Staff (BP-A0148) to the Clinical Coordinator” (p. 23).

What the court does, and what the Bureau does

This distinction is the whole point of the page, so it gets its own section.

A Program Statement is the Bureau’s internal instruction to its own staff. It is not law, and it cannot commit anyone. Everything in PS 5394.01 up to and including the signed “Certification of a Sexually Dangerous Person” is an internal executive-branch process. What follows the filing is a federal civil case in a United States district court, and the person is a party to it with the rights a party has.

Those rights are statutory. 18 U.S.C. § 4248(c) provides that “[t]he hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d).” Section 4247(d), in turn:

At a hearing ordered pursuant to this chapter the person whose mental condition is the subject of the hearing shall be represented by counsel and, if he is financially unable to obtain adequate representation, counsel shall be appointed for him pursuant to section 3006A. … The person shall be afforded an opportunity to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing.

And the examiner is not only the government’s. Section 4247(b) provides that an examination ordered under the chapter “shall be conducted by a licensed or certified psychiatrist or psychologist, or, if the court finds it appropriate, by more than one such examiner. Each examiner shall be designated by the court, except that if the examination is ordered under section 4245, 4246, or 4248, upon the request of the defendant an additional examiner may be selected by the defendant.” Section 4247(c) requires the resulting report to be filed with the court “with copies provided to the counsel for the person examined and to the attorney for the Government,” and to state, where the examination is ordered under § 4248, “whether the person is a sexually dangerous person.”

The standard of proof is in the statute. Section 4248(d):

If, after the hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a sexually dangerous person, the court shall commit the person to the custody of the Attorney General.

The same subsection directs that “[t]he Attorney General shall release the person to the appropriate official of the State in which the person is domiciled or was tried if such State will assume responsibility for his custody, care, and treatment,” and that “[t]he Attorney General shall make all reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility.” Only if no state will is the person placed in a suitable facility — which is what §§ 7 and 8 of the Program Statement implement at pp. 17–18.

On discharge, § 4248(e) provides that when the facility director determines that the person “is no longer sexually dangerous to others, or will not be sexually dangerous to others if released under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment,” and the court “shall order the discharge of the person or, on motion of the attorney for the Government or on its own motion, shall hold a hearing.” At that hearing, the burden flips to a lower standard: the court acts if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence” that the person will not be sexually dangerous if released unconditionally or under a prescribed regimen.

Three points of decided law are worth stating precisely, because a great deal of inaccurate material about § 4248 circulates.

Congress had the power to enact it. In United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), the Supreme Court held that “the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact §4248 as ‘necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’ the powers ‘vested by’ the ‘Constitution in the Government of the United States.'” The Court reasoned in part that “the Federal Government is the custodian of its prisoners” and “[a]s federal custodian, it has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger federal prisoners may pose.” Comstock also expressly reserved a great deal: “We do not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection of the laws, procedural or substantive due process, or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

The government has to prove three things, and it does not always succeed. In United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 2012), the Fourth Circuit stated the elements exactly: “To obtain a commitment order against Hall, the government was required to establish three distinct facts by clear and convincing evidence: that Hall (1) ‘has engaged or attempted to engage in … child molestation’ in the past; (2) currently ‘suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder’; and (3) as a result of the illness, abnormality, or disorder, ‘would have serious difficulty in refraining from … child molestation if released.'” The court affirmed a district court’s determination that the government had not carried that burden on the third element. It also defined the standard: clear and convincing evidence is “evidence of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, and, as well, as evidence that proves the facts at issue to be highly probable.”

The third element is about volitional impairment, not just risk. Hall again: “the ‘serious difficulty’ prong of § 4248’s certification proceeding refers to the degree of the person’s ‘volitional impairment,’ which impacts the person’s ability to refrain from acting upon his deviant sexual interests.” That framing traces to Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), which Hall quotes for the proposition that coupling dangerousness with mental illness or abnormality “serve[s] to limit involuntary civil confinement to those who suffer from a volitional impairment rendering them dangerous beyond their control.”

Hall is a Fourth Circuit case, and the Fourth Circuit is where nearly all of this litigation happens, because FCI Butner is the designated institution and certifications are transmitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina (PS 5394.01 at p. 17). If a case is going to be appealed, it is ordinarily going to the Fourth Circuit.

We are not going to tell you how any of this comes out for any person. Outcomes in these cases turn on the individual record, the diagnostic evidence, and the district judge’s assessment of competing experts — and, as Hall put it, appellate courts must defer where “[t]he district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.”

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The single most useful thing anyone can do about this process is find out, in writing, what Walsh Act code is in the file — and do it years before release, not months. Ask a case manager to read the case management assignment out of SENTRY at a program review, and put the answer in writing with the date. If the code is WA NO HIST, that is a fact about the record as it stands. If it is WA W CONV or WA NO CONV, the file is flagged and a referral is scheduled to happen inside the 18-to-24-month window. That is not a prediction about anyone’s case; it is a scheduling fact, and it is the difference between a family that has counsel engaged and a file gathered when a certificate is filed, and a family that learns about § 4248 from a phone call the week release was supposed to happen. The second most useful thing is to fix the PSR. The Bureau screens off the PSR, the J&C and the Statement of Reasons, and the panel weighs admissions recorded in official proceedings more heavily than clinical ones. A factual assertion nobody objected to at sentencing does not become less true to a reviewing panel eight years later.

What civil commitment certification means for you

If you are the person inside: know your code, and the warning

Three things are worth knowing, and one of them is a warning.

Know your code. The Walsh Act case management assignment in SENTRY is the visible part of this process, and you can ask for it. Put it in writing on a BP-A0148 Inmate Request to Staff — the form everyone calls a “cop-out” — to your Case Manager or to the Case Management Coordinator, who is ordinarily the designated Sex Offender Release Coordinator (PS 5394.01 at pp. 8–9). Ask what your Walsh Act CMA is and when it was last reviewed. Keep the answer with a date on it.

Understand the halfway-house rule. “[A]n inmate may not be placed in an RRC until the SOCRB has concluded its review of the inmate and approved him/her for release” (p. 9). If your release-preparation dates are moving and nobody will say why, that provision may be the reason and it is a legitimate thing to ask about in writing.

The warning. If a psychologist tells you the interview is for a precertification evaluation and hands you a BP-A1044, that is not a routine mental-health contact — it is a forensic evaluation in a process that can stop your release, and the policy says it “will be conducted with or without” your participation (p. 14). Say that you want to speak to a lawyer before answering questions. That request is not misconduct and it is not refusal of treatment; it is the ordinary thing anyone does when the government is building a case. Then get one. Sex offender treatment programming is a different subject entirely and runs on PS 5324.10 — see our page on sex offender treatment programs — but § 549.95(e) makes both completion and non-completion of such a program relevant evidence, which is a genuine tension worth discussing with counsel rather than with staff.

If you are the family member: timing, records and counsel

Your job is timing, records, and getting counsel in the room before a certificate exists.

Timing first. The screening window opens 18 to 24 months before the projected release date, or immediately where the total sentence does not exceed 18 months (PS 5394.01 at p. 8). Nothing is filed with a court at that stage and nothing is sent to you. If there is any history of sexual offense conduct in the case — including conduct that never produced a conviction, which is expressly enough to trigger the WA NO CONV code — this is the period to be paying attention.

Records second. The documents the Bureau screens from are the ones the family usually already has or can get: the presentence report, the judgment and commitment order, and the statement of reasons. If those contain factual assertions nobody contested at sentencing, they carry forward. Our page on the presentence report explains why. Records inside the Bureau — the central file, program review notes, incident reports — can be obtained through the unit team or through a Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act request.

Counsel third, and this is the part people get wrong. A § 4248 proceeding is a federal court case, not a prison grievance. Counsel is appointed if the person cannot afford a lawyer, under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Retained counsel can be engaged before anything is filed, which is the only point at which there is time to assemble records, identify an independent examiner, and prepare rather than react. We are a federal criminal defense and appellate firm; see Federal Criminal Defense Attorney and contact us. Our fee structure is on the fees page.

One more practical point. If a transfer to Butner happens, the person is going to a complex in Granville County, North Carolina, that houses several separate institutions — FCI Butner Low, FCI Butner Medium 1, FCI Butner Medium 2 and FMC Butner. Visiting, mail and phone rules follow the specific institution; our North Carolina federal prisons index lists each.

If you are counsel: civil commitment certification

Six things, in the order they matter.

The stay is automatic. Section 4248(a) provides that “[a] certificate filed under this subsection shall stay the release of the person pending completion of procedures contained in this section.” There is no judicial gatekeeping at filing. Whatever else is true, the release date is gone the moment the certificate hits the clerk’s office.

Get an independent examiner. Section 4247(b) gives the person, on request, an additional examiner of their own selection for a § 4248 examination. Given that the panel itself uses “a clinically adjusted actuarial method of risk assessment” — actuarial instruments plus clinical adjustment “upward or downward” for dynamic factors (PS 5394.01 at p. 16) — and given the deference the Fourth Circuit gives district-court credibility findings on competing experts (Hall, 664 F.3d 456), the examiner selection is not a formality.

Get the administrative file. The Program Statement names discrete, requestable documents: the Correctional Program Specialist’s Element 1 screening, the actuarial instruments used, the case summary prepared by an SOCRB Clinical Psychologist, entries in the Sex Offender Data System (SODS), the precertification evaluation report, and the CRP’s certification declaration (pp. 12–17). It also documents the CTP side in the Psychology Data System (PDS) with a comprehensive assessment, an individual treatment plan, contact notes, 180-day progress reviews and a discharge evaluation (p. 24).

Mind the nexus. The Program Statement is explicit at p. 16: “the inmate’s serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation must result from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder. There must be a clearly identifiable link, or nexus, between these two elements to warrant certification.” That is the Bureau’s own statement of what its panel must find, and it tracks the constitutional framing Hall drew from Hendricks.

Know the discharge clock. Section 4247(h) permits counsel to move for a discharge hearing at any time except within 180 days of a court determination that commitment should continue, whether or not the facility director has filed a certificate. The Program Statement acknowledges that such a motion “would necessitate either an evaluation or an addendum to a prior evaluation that was completed within a reasonable time frame” (p. 28).

Appeal and collateral routes. Commitment orders are appealable; the Fourth Circuit is the ordinary forum given the Butner concentration — see Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and our general federal appeals page. Post-conviction and habeas questions in a related criminal case run on separate tracks; see Post-Conviction Attorney and, for challenges to the execution of a sentence, the § 2241 petition. Note that in Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525 (4th Cir. 2010), the Fourth Circuit addressed a § 2241 petition brought by a § 4248 respondent; the treatment history of that line of cases should be checked before it is relied on.

What changed in the certification change notice

Two questions matter here: what Change Notice 1 actually did, and what has aged around a document written in 2016.

CN-1 changed two words, and the mirror cannot show you that. Change Notice 1, dated February 27, 2025 and approved by Acting Director William W. Lothrop, states on its face (PS 5394.01 at p. 1): “This CN removes language to ensure consistency with Executive Orders issued by the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Additions are marked with a highlight and deleted text is marked with a strikethrough.” What follows is § 10.k, Personal Property, and § 10.l, Incoming Publications. In each, one bullet reads:

Written or pictorial materials that promote violence or reflect a degrading attitude to persons based on ~~gender~~ sex.

That is the entire change: “gender” struck, “sex” inserted, in two parallel bullets. Nothing else in the 32-page document was touched. We confirmed this by rendering pages 1, 2 and 26 of BOP’s own PDF as images, because strikethrough and highlighting do not survive plain-text extraction — in extracted text those bullets read “based on gender sex,” which is not what the document says.

CN-1 was part of a wave. Program statements carrying the same or nearly identical cover language and the same February–March 2025 dates include PS 5310.16, Treatment and Care of Inmates with Mental Illness CN-1 (2/18/2025); PS 5324.10, Sex Offender Programs CN-1 (2/18/2025), which made the identical “gender”→”sex” substitution in its own personal-property restrictions at § 4.6.1; PS 5321.09, Unit Management and Inmate Program Review CN-1 (2/27/2025); and PS 5521.06, Searches CN-1 (3/6/2025).

The regulation has not changed. 28 C.F.R. part 549, subpart H — §§ 549.90 through 549.95 — is current in the Code with a December 29, 2016 effective date. Nothing in the CN touched it, and nothing in the statute has been amended in a way that alters the definitions.

Eight of the fourteen cross-references in the 2016 text now point at retired editions. The References list at PS 5394.01 at p. 29 names fourteen program statements; eight of them have since been replaced. Current numbers, verified against BOP’s published policy index on 2026-09-06:

As printed at PS 5394.01 p. 29	Current edition
P1315.07 Legal Activities, Inmate (11/5/1999)	PS 1315.08
P5100.08 Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification (9/12/2006)	PS 5100.08 CN-3
P5267.08 Visiting Regulations (5/11/2006)	PS 5267.09 CN-1
P5270.10 Special Housing Units (7/29/2011)	PS 5270.12 CN-1
P5270.09 Inmate Discipline Program (7/8/2011)	PS 5270.09 CN-1
P5360.09 Religious Beliefs and Practices (6/12/2015)	PS 5360.10
P5580.08 Inmate Personal Property (8/22/2011)	PS 5580.10
P6031.04 Patient Care (6/3/2014)	PS 6031.06 (eff. 6/22/2026)

Four references in the same list are still current as printed — P1330.18 Administrative Remedy Program, P5251.06 Inmate Work and Performance Pay, P5265.14 Correspondence and P5266.11 Incoming Publications — as are P5300.21 and P5800.16.

Because § 10 of the Program Statement runs conditions of confinement “in accordance with BOP policy” rather than restating it, those cross-references matter: the current visiting, correspondence, publication, property and discipline rules are the ones that apply, not the 2011 editions the References list. Note also what the References do and do not contain. Under “Other Standards” the Program Statement cites “Prison Rape Elimination Act, Prisons and Jail Standards, 28 C.F.R. Part 115.41” (p. 29) — the PREA screening regulation — but it names no Bureau PREA program statement at all. The Bureau’s PREA implementing policy has since been amended and then replaced: PS 5324.12 (6/4/2015), amended by CN-1 (2/18/2025), and rescinded by PS 5333.01 (3/19/2026) — which states that rescission on its own first page.

A dated technology reference. PS 5394.01 at p. 11 directs staff handling an immediate-release case to “send an electronic copy of the PSR, J&C, SOR, and any other pertinent information to the SOCRB GroupWise mailbox (BOP-CPD/Certification Review Panel), marking the message ‘urgent, high-priority,'” with after-hours contact numbers “located on SOCRB’s Sallyport website and the weekly Duty Officer’s Program Roster.” BOP has since stated on the record that in August 2026 it moved its core inmate systems “onto a secure, modern cloud platform” (BOP News, “BOP Brings Decades Old Systems Into a Modern Era” (Aug. 27, 2026)). The Program Statement has not been updated to reflect any of that; treat the named mailbox and routing as the 2016 text, not as a current address.

Where people get stuck in the certification process

Four problems recur, and the routes are genuinely different from one another.

“My halfway house date disappeared and nobody will explain.” This is the most common way families first encounter § 4248. Start with a written Inmate Request to Staff (BP-A0148) to the Case Manager and, separately, to the Case Management Coordinator, asking two specific things: what Walsh Act case management assignment appears in SENTRY, and whether a referral to the Sex Offender Certification Review Branch has been made. Cite the sentence at PS 5394.01 p. 9 — “an inmate may not be placed in an RRC until the SOCRB has concluded its review of the inmate and approved him/her for release” — so the question cannot be answered as though it were about bed space. If nothing comes back, the formal ladder is the Administrative Remedy Program: BP-9 to the Warden, BP-10 to the Regional Director, BP-11 to the Office of National Inmate Appeals, under 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B, with a deadline at the first formal step of “20 calendar days following the date on which the basis for the Request occurred” under 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a), subject to an extension “[w]here the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay.” BOP publishes BP-A0148 but does not publish the BP-9, BP-10 or BP-11 forms — those come from the unit team. See Administrative Remedy Program and Request to Staff.

“The Walsh Act code in the file is wrong.” This is a records problem with a real route, and it is worth pursuing early rather than late. The codes turn on documented conduct, and the Program Statement puts the duty to keep them accurate on the SORC and the unit team, reviewed “[a]t every Program Review” (pp. 8–9). Ask for the basis of the assignment in writing. Where the underlying document is the presentence report and the assertion in it was never contested, that is a different and harder problem — see the presentence report and get counsel. Where the error is in Bureau records rather than in the court documents, the correction routes are the unit team, the central file review process, and a Privacy Act request.

“I’ve been told I’m being transferred for an evaluation.” Stop and get a lawyer before the interview. A precertification evaluation is a forensic examination requested by the Certification Review Panel to help it decide two of the three elements (PS 5394.01 at p. 14), not treatment. The policy provides notice on a BP-A1044 and states that the evaluation proceeds “with or without” participation. Nothing in the Program Statement or the statute obliges anyone to answer questions in that interview without first consulting counsel, and 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) gives the person the right to request an additional examiner of their own selection once a court orders an examination. This is not an administrative-remedy problem. It is a defense problem — contact us or another federal criminal defense lawyer immediately.

“A certificate has been filed.” Then the administrative process is over and a federal court case has begun. The release is stayed by operation of § 4248(a). The person is entitled to counsel — appointed if they cannot afford one — a hearing conducted under § 4247(d) with the right to testify, present evidence, subpoena witnesses and cross-examine, an examiner of their own selection under § 4247(b), a decision under the clear-and-convincing standard of § 4248(d), and an appeal. Filing grievances at this stage accomplishes nothing; building the record for the hearing does. See Federal Criminal Defense Attorney and Federal Appeals Attorney.

For anything else — designation, transfer, discipline, medical care, records — those are prison-administration problems and run through Federal Prison Consulting Services.

Related BOP policy on civil commitment

The paired page is Sex Offender Treatment Programs in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which explains the SOMP designation, the residential and non-residential treatment programs, and what participation involves. It names this page in its first screen for the certification process; this page links there for the treatment side, because 28 C.F.R. § 549.95(e) makes completion or non-completion of a treatment program relevant evidence.

Policies that meet this one directly: Sex Offender Programs (PS 5324.10), the policy that governs SOMP institutions and treatment programming and that received a parallel Change Notice in February 2025; Treatment and Care of Inmates With Mental Illness (PS 5310.16) for mental health care levels and for what the CTP’s clinical services sit inside; Forensic and Other Mental Health Evaluations (PS 5070.12) for how court-ordered evaluations are conducted generally; Unit Team and Program Review (PS 5321.09) for the program reviews at which the Walsh Act code is supposed to be checked; and Security Designation and Custody Classification (PS 5100.08) for how a SOMP designation is assigned.

Where the process becomes visible: Halfway House Placement Procedures (PS 7310.04) and Release Preparation Program (PS 5325.09) for the release track this review can hold up; BOP Grand Prairie: Designation and Sentence Computation Center for the DSCC that starts the screening; SENTRY (PS 5890.13) for the system that holds the codes; and Detainers and the Interstate Agreement (PS 5800.15), since a detainer is one of the pieces of information the SORC forwards.

Conditions inside the CTP run on ordinary Bureau policy with the exceptions § 10 sets out: Visiting Regulations, Correspondence, Incoming Publications, Inmate Personal Property, Inmate Work and Performance Pay, Religious Beliefs and Practices, Inmate Legal Activities, Patient Care, Inmate Discipline Program and Special Housing Units.

Where the unit sits: FCI Butner Low, FCI Butner Medium 1, FCI Butner Medium 2, FMC Butner, and the North Carolina federal prisons index.

Our work: Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Federal Appeals Attorney, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Post-Conviction Attorney, Federal Habeas Corpus Attorney, the § 2241 petition, Federal Prison Consulting Services and our fees. Further reading on our site: Surviving Prison as a Sex Offender and Sex Offenders in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Frequently Asked Questions About Civil Commitment

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026