United States v. Titus Connally , 229 F. App'x 879 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 2, 2007
No. 06-14812 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00008-CR-2-CLS-HGD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TITUS CONNALLY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(May 2, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Titus Connally appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised
release. After review, we affirm.
Connally was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, possession
with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). He was
sentenced to 197 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised
release. Connally does not dispute that he violated the conditions of his supervised
release, but argues that the district court abused its discretion in revoking his
supervised release because his violations were harmless and mitigated by
circumstances.1
The district court concluded that Connally violated the conditions of his
supervised release by, inter alia, leaving the jurisdiction on three separate
occasions without permission, failing to report to his probation officer, failing to
follow the instructions of his probation officer, lying to his probation officer,
failing to produce sufficient evidence of employment, and associating with a
convicted felon without permission. The district court noted that although no other
violation “than the traveling outside the Northern District of Alabama without
1
This Court ordinarily reviews a district court’s revocation of supervised release for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th Cir. 1994).
However, when a defendant fails to raise an issue in the district court, this Court reviews for
plain error. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2005). Although
Connally did not make this argument in the district court, we conclude that, even under the abuse
of discretion standard, Connally’s argument fails.
2
permission is particularly damning,” because of “the numerosity of them, and the
extent of [Connally’s] continued obstruction of justice in failing to be truthful
when responding to the questions of [the] probation officers,” Connally’s
supervised release status should be revoked. The district court sentenced Connally
to twelve months’ imprisonment.
Contrary to Connally’s claims, a criminal act is not a prerequisite to
revocation of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing
revocation of supervised release for violations of supervised release conditions).
Once the district court has determined that the defendant committed a violation, it
“should consider whether the [defendant] made a ‘good faith’ effort to comply
with the [conditions of his supervised release] and whether there are mitigating
circumstances which excuse his noncompliance.” United States v. Holland, 874
F.2d 1470, 1473 (11th Cir. 1989).2 The district court must explain its findings as
to the evidence it relies on and the reasons for revoking the supervised release.
See United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 414 (11th Cir. 1994) (concluding that
an oral statement, recorded and transcribed, satisfies Morrissey v. Brewer, 408
U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2593 (1972), which requires a written statement of findings).
2
Although Holland is a probation revocation case, probation and supervised release are
conceptually the same, and this Court treats revocations the same whether they involve probation
or supervised release. See United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 113 (11th Cir. 1994).
3
Here, the district court adequately set forth the evidence it relied on and its
reasons for the decision. The district court reviewed the materials relating to
Connally’s underlying conviction and the evidence offered at the revocation
hearing, including the testimony of specific witnesses. The district court found
that Connally committed multiple violations and that his explanations for the
violations were not credible. The district court’s revocation of Connally’s
supervised release did not amount to an abuse of discretion, much less plain error.
AFFIRMED.
4