Filed: Jul. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-51143 Document: 00513583217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-51143 FILED July 7, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus EARL ELLIS DIX, Also Known as Earl Eliss Dix, Defendant–Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:03-CR-111-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges
Summary: Case: 14-51143 Document: 00513583217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-51143 FILED July 7, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus EARL ELLIS DIX, Also Known as Earl Eliss Dix, Defendant–Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:03-CR-111-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges...
More
Case: 14-51143 Document: 00513583217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-51143 FILED
July 7, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
EARL ELLIS DIX, Also Known as Earl Eliss Dix,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:03-CR-111-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Earl Dix appealed an order of October 9, 2014, revoking his conditional
release. Dix filed a second notice of appeal on September 4, 2015, from a letter
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-51143 Document: 00513583217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2016
No. 14-51143
by the district court declining to release him. That followed a recommendation
from the warden that Dix be conditionally released as no longer a danger to
society.
We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and the pertinent por-
tions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that
the district court did not clearly err in finding that Dix had not taken his med-
ications as prescribed by his medical provider. Under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(f), how-
ever, the court, having received the determination of the warden, was required
either to “order the discharge of the acquitted person . . . or . . . hold a hearing
. . . to determine whether he should be released.” The court has done neither.
The order complained of is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED
for the district court to take the action that the statute requires. We do not
indicate what rulings the court should make on remand.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
2