Currency, 895 F.2d at 916 (“[Cjivil forfeiture is not a direct consequence of a guilty plea because it does not represent a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant’s punishment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Civil commitment under the Act is not “definite, immediate, and largely automatic.” See U.S. Currency, 895 F.2d at 916. Youngs will not face possible confinement under the Act until the end of his period of incarceration. Once he reaches that time, civil commitment is uncertain; the Government would first have to choose to certify Youngs for civil commitment -and then would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Youngs is, at that time, a sexually dangerous person. To do so, it will have to demonstrate both a pred 1984) (<HOLDING>). Because civil commitment is a collateral
holding that for an initial civil commitment the state has the burden of proof holding that the possibility that a sex offender could face civil commitment under a state statute was a collateral consequence because civil commitment does not flow automatically from the plea holding that potential civil commitment under a state statute was a collateral consequence of pleading guilty holding that claims for civil rights violation and false imprisonment arising out of civil commitment are not appropriate for tribunal review holding heck applicable to claims that implicate the validity of civil commitment proceedings