United States v. Stuart G. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Stuart G. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Maine v. Seth M. Johansen
Me. · 2014 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14, 24 (1st Cir.2004) (“[B]ecause revocation proceedings are not criminal proceedings, [defendant] will not be entitled to refuse to answer questions solely on the ground that his replies may lead to revocation of his supervised release.”); United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam) (“Miranda’s prophylaxis is inapplicable in a probation revocation proceeding.”); United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932, 933 (5th Cir.1972) (“A probation revocation hearing is not an adversary or a criminal proceeding....
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jackson
D.D.C. · 2001 · confidence medium
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 317 (11th Cir.1993); United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827, 828 (5th Cir.1975); United States v. Torrez-Flores, 624 F.2d 776, 779 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Thomas, 934 F.2d 840, 846 (7th Cir.1991); Brown v. Warden, 351 F.2d 564, 566-567 (7th Cir.1965) (“The inquiry of the court at such a hearing is not directed to the probationer’s guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal prosecution, but to the truth of the accu…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Phillip S. Davis (2×)
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See also Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 560 , 100 S.Ct. 1358, 1364 , 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980) (Miranda 's requirement of specific warnings "does not apply outside the context of the inherently coercive custodial interrogations for which it was designed.") Cf. United States v. Rea, 678 F.2d 382, 390 (2d Cir.1982) (prisoner released on probation not entitled to Miranda warnings when speaking with probation officer); United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1018 , 100 S.Ct. 673 , 62 L.Ed.2d 649 (1980) (Miranda warnings not required at interview wi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Aldape
Kan. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Similarly, in United States v. Mackenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1018 (1980), the court held that Miranda protection was inapplicable in a probation revocation hearing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gilbert L. Dozier (2×)
5th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1018 , 100 S.Ct. 673 , 62 L.Ed.2d 649 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John W. Young v. United States Parole Commission, John W. Allman, Superintendent, Etc.
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
This Court previously has held that “Miranda’s prophylaxis is inapplicable in a probation revocation proceeding.” United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1018 , 100 S.Ct. 673 , 62 L.Ed.2d 649 (1980); United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932, 933 (5th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Boynton v. Casey
D. Me. · 1982 · confidence medium
United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct. 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Keith Alexander McLeod
5th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Garza, 484 F.2d at 89 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marcus T. Baumann v. United States (2×)
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. McKenzie, 601 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856 , 93 S.Ct. 136 , 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); People v. Harrington, 2 Cal.3d 991 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 471 P.2d 961 (1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Stuart G. MacKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant
79-5164.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 23, 1979.
601 F.2d 221
John J. C. O’Shea, Lubbock, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Bob D. Slough, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lubbock, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Ainsworth, Clark, Per Curiam, Vance.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Stuart G. MacKenzie, a 79-year-old medical doctor, pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S. C.A. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to a plea bargain he was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine and to be imprisoned for one year. The sentence of imprisonment was suspended and MacKenzie was placed on probation for three years on special conditions which included a grant of full access to MacKenzie’s home office and records to detect future drug violations.

Within nine months of sentence MacKen-zie’s probation officer alleged that he had violated probation by practicing medicine after his license to practice had been can-celled by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and by making three false statements to his probation officer denying he was practicing medicine. After a plenary hearing the district court revoked MacKen-zie’s probation. He appeals from that revocation asserting four technical errors, each of which is without merit.

First, MacKenzie asserts that the indictment to which he pled fails to state an offense. That is no defense in a probation revocation proceeding. United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1975).

Second, MacKenzie asserts that the probation officer was required to give him Miranda warnings before interrogating him and obtaining admissions that he was practicing medicine without a license and had lied about such practice in former interviews with the probation officer. Miranda’s prophylaxis is inapplicable in a probation revocation proceeding. United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1972).

Third, MacKenzie asserts that the evidence adduced was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had practiced medicine in violation of his probation. In addition to MacKenzie’s own admission the government adduced evidence of patients and drug purchase records. This was more than sufficient to meet the lesser standard of proof applicable. Enough evidence to satisfy the district judge that the conduct of probationer has not met the conditions of probation is all that is required. United States v. Garza, 484 F.2d 88, 89 (5th Cir. 1973).

Finally, MacKenzie asserts that the order of the Texas Board of Medical Examiners cancelling his license to practice medicine was improperly admitted. In this rev[*223] ocation proceeding relaxed evidentiary rules apply, but the proof offered clearly met the requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1).

AFFIRMED.