USA vs. Lankford, (5th Cir. 1996)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit No. 95-11115 (Summary Calendar) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WILLIAM DOUGLAS LANKFORD, III, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (7:95-CR-014-X) January 23, 1996 Before JONES, JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * William Douglas Lankford, III appeals the district court§ 3142(g); and United States v. Fortna , 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 1985). We find that the record amply demonstrates that no circumstances could ensure the safety of Joanie Renee Lankford, LankfordÂ’s estranged wife. Further, we agree with the district court that Lankfo rdÂ’s self-serving statement that he wanted nothing more to do with Ms. Lankford is unpersuasive. LankfordÂ’s recent past violent behavior toward Ms. Lankford strongly suggests that he will engage in future misconduct which will endanger Ms. Lankford. He attacked Ms. Lankford on three occasions over a four month period. During some attacks Lankford threatened Ms. Lankford with a lo aded gun; during other attacks Lankford abducted his wife from her place of employment.
Moreover, the last attack occurred while Lankford was released on bond pending charges for an earlier attack. Because past conduct suggests the likeliho o d o f future misconduct, the finding of dangerousness was properly based on evidence that Lankford has been a danger in the past. See United States v. Dominguez , 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986).
Lankford, who has custody of his three children, also contends that his custodial status will prevent him from receiving disabilit y payments because he wi ll no t be able to secure a physicianÂ’s review of his medical condition. We will not review this issue because it was not raised before the district court, because the questions are not purely legal, and because the failure to review it will not result in manifest injustice. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
For the foregoing reasons we AFFIRM the district courtÂ’s reversal of the magistrate judgeÂ’s order of release.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Dominguez and Roberto Rodriguez, Defendants-Appellants., 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1986)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Edward Charles Varnado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Samuel Fortna, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 85-1403. Summary Calendar., 769 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1985)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
