United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 25, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20302
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN DAVID WILEY, III
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-442-10
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wiley, a pharmacist, is on trial in the Southern District
of Texas, charged with offenses relating to the unlawful distri-
bution of controlled substances through a pharmacy named I-10 East
Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. On motion of the Government, Wiley’s
release on bond pending trial was revoked after the court heard
evidence that Wiley continues to engage in the conduct for which he
has been indicted.
On appeal, absent an error of law, this court must affirm
the district court’s order revoking bond and detaining Wiley
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
pending trial if the order “is supported by the proceedings below.”
The statute states that, “If there is probable cause to believe
that, while on release, the person committed a Federal . . .
felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or
combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose
a danger to the safety of any other person in the community.” 18
U.S.C. § 3148(B).
Wiley offered no evidence challenging the testimony of
Inspector Callahan that Wiley has continued to dispense dosages of
hydrocodone in amounts far in excess of usual medical practice,
under conditions that suggested dispensation for non-medical
reasons. Wiley’s appeal does not challenge the evidence, but
instead simply disagrees with the legal characterization of his
conduct, i.e., with the characterization of the conduct for which
he is also now on trial. We express no opinion on the ultimate
legal issues. The district court’s order, in any event, is fully
supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
2