United States v. Thomas Barrett Stringer ( 2013 )

Case: 12-12109 Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12109
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:00-cr-06235-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS BARRETT STRINGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12111
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:00-cr-06236-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
Case: 12-12109 Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Page: 2 of 6
THOMAS B. STRINGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12211
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:00-cr-06227-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS BARRETT STRINGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12212
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:00-cr-06133-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
2
Case: 12-12109 Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Page: 3 of 6
versus
THOMAS BARRETT STRINGER,
a.k.a. Thomas B. Stringer,
a.k.a. Hank A. Black,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12390
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:02-cr-20079-DMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS BARRETT STRINGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 3, 2013)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
3
Case: 12-12109 Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Page: 4 of 6
Thomas Barrett Stringer appeals the revocation of his supervised release and
his sentence of 99 months of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Stringer
argues that the district court violated his right of access to the courts under the
Fifth Amendment, which impaired his ability to represent himself, in violation of
the Sixth Amendment. Stringer also argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We
affirm.
The district court did not violate Stringer’s constitutional rights. Although a
prisoner is entitled to access to the courts, the denial of access to legal materials
does not violate the Fifth Amendment unless that deprivation impedes the prisoner
from pursing a nonfriviolous claim for relief. Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d
1284, 1290 –91 (11th Cir. 1998) (discussing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.
Ct. 1491 (1977), and Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996)).
Stringer fails to identify any issue that he was unable to raise because he was
separated from his personal files while being transferred between Florida and New
York to resolve the violations of his supervised release and outstanding criminal
charges or because he was allegedly denied access to a pen and paper and a legal
library while he was detained in a Florida jail. Because Stringer twice waived his
right to appointed counsel and opted to represent himself with the assistance of
standby counsel, “the alternative of a library [was] not mandatory.” See Edwards
v. United States, 795 F.2d 958, 961 (11th Cir. 1986). As a pro se litigant, Stringer
4
Case: 12-12109 Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Page: 5 of 6
had his revocation hearing continued four times, filed numerous motions in the
state and federal courts, and filed a large omnibus motion for a continuance for
discovery and a dismissal, in whole and in part, of the petition for revocation.
During his revocation hearing, Stringer was knowledgeable of his numerous
offenses, recalled comments made by a judge in New York during an earlier
sentencing hearing, and challenged the authenticity of a judgment. Stringer
decided to “manage[] his own defense[ and] relinquishe[d], as a purely factual
matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel.” See
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541 (1975). In the light
of Stringer’s ability to manage his case, we cannot say that the denial of access to
unspecified legal materials impeded his right to self-representation under the Sixth
Amendment. See Alvarez v. Att’y Gen. for the State of Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1266
(11th Cir. 2012).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Stringer.
The district court revoked Stringer’s supervised release in four cases for which he
had been convicted of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and uttering counterfeit
securities, id. § 513(a). Stringer had already violated his supervised release by
escaping from a prison camp in January 2002 and by absconding for two years
during which he committed several fraud offenses in Florida, for which he received
a sentence of 159 months of imprisonment, and in New York, for which he
5
Case: 12-12109 Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Page: 6 of 6
received a sentence of 60 months of imprisonment. The district court acted within
its discretion to impose the maximum sentence in each of Stringer’s four cases and
ordered that three of those sentences run consecutive to each other and to the
sentence imposed by the New York court. See United States v. Quinones, 136
F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 1998). The district court reasonably determined that
consecutive sentences were necessary to address Stringer’s recidivism and lack of
respect for the law and to punish him for violating his supervised release by
committing five new crimes, failing to submit to drug and alcohol testing, and
failing to report his change of address. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3), 3553(a).
Stringer’s sentence is reasonable.
We AFFIRM the revocation of Stringer’s supervised release and his 99-
month sentence.
6