U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2001

UNITED STATES of America-Appellee v. James CARBULLIDO-Appellant

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 1, 2001 · Noonan, Silverman, Sedwick

251 F.3d 833; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4454; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5515; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 11370; 2001 WL 585547 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

John Lambrose, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the defendant-appellant., Thomas M. O’Connell, Kathleen Bliss, USLV-Office of the United States Attorney, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Bohe (District Court, D. North Dakota 2005)
United States v. James Carbullido (9th Cir. 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In a case of first impression in this Circuit, James Carbullido (“Carbullido”) appeals the district court’s order conditionally releasing him from custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(f). Carbullido argues that the governing statute — 18 U.S.C. § 4243(e) — only permits his commitment or unconditional release. He is correct. Conditional release is only appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(f) after a person has been committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(c)(e). Carbullido was not thus committed. Consequently, he could not be conditionally released under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(f). See United States v. Baker, 155 F.3d 392, 395 (4th Cir. 1998) (“discharge from commitment cannot precede the commitment itself.”).

The district court’s error does not compel Carbullido’s unconditional discharge. The district court’s order finding that Carbullido did not pose a present danger to society was linked to the conditions it imposed for release. Implied in the district court’s reasoning is the conclusion that Carbullido failed to establish that his unconditional release “would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property to another due to a mental disease or defect. ...” 18 U.S.C. § 4243(e) (1988).

*835 VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.