Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0471-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Ellis DIX, Also Known as Earl Eliss Dix, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-51143
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 07/07/2016
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ellen A. Lockwood, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Denton Bryan Lessman, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    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 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 portions 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 medications as prescribed by his medical provider. Under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(f), however, 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4.