Court Opinion

ID: 9786676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:00:34.511537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:13.007862
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50103         Document: 00516878086             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50103
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                August 30, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Thomas Austin Dickey, III,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:18-CR-43-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Thomas Austin Dickey, III, appeals the sentence imposed following
   the revocation of his supervised release. Dickey challenges the imposition of
   two conditions of supervised release that he contends impermissibly delegate
   judicial authority. He argues that the district court delegated its authority to
   a therapist to impose lifestyle restrictions and delegated its authority to the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50103      Document: 00516878086           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                     No. 23-50103

   probation officer to determine whether Dickey poses a risk to another person
   and to require him to notify that person.
          Because Dickey failed to object to these supervised release conditions
   in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v.
   Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450, 451 (5th Cir. 2022). To succeed on plain error
   review, Dickey must demonstrate, among other things, that “(1) the district
   court erred; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his
   substantial rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Dickey’s challenge to the risk notification condition is foreclosed by
   Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th at 452, where we rejected the same argument and
   held that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, by imposing the
   same risk notification condition. However, his challenge to the lifestyle
   restrictions condition warrants a different result. The condition states the
   following:
          The defendant shall follow all other lifestyle restrictions or
          treatment requirements imposed by the therapist, and continue
          those restrictions as they pertain to avoiding risk situations
          throughout the course of supervision. This includes not
          residing or going to places where a minor or minors are known
          to frequent without prior approval of the probation officer.

   This condition suffers from the same defect that existed in identical
   conditions we have repeatedly rejected even on plain error review. See United
   States v. Morin, 832 F.3d 513, 516-18 (5th Cir. 2016); see also United States v.
   Iverson, 874 F.3d 855, 861 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Huor, 852 F.3d
   392, 403 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, Dickey meets the standard for vacatur
   under plain error review, and we again exercise our discretion on plain error
   review to correct this unlawful delegation of sentencing authority and vacate
   the condition.

                                          2
Case: 23-50103     Document: 00516878086         Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                  No. 23-50103

         Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
   except for the lifestyle restrictions condition, which is VACATED, and the
   case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
   The Government’s motions to vacate the lifestyle restrictions condition,
   otherwise summarily affirm the judgment, and alternatively extend the time
   to file its brief are DENIED as moot.

                                       3