United States v. Michele Thompson ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-11246      Document: 00512465352         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/09/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 12-11246                        December 9, 2013
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                        Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    MICHELE RENEE THOMPSON,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:07-CR-72-1
    Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Michele Thompson pleaded guilty to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C.
    § 1344(2) by committing financial institution fraud and one count of violating
    18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) by committing credit card fraud.                  Thompson was
    sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to
    run concurrently. Additionally, she was ordered to serve a supervised release
    term of five years on each count of financial institution fraud and three years
    on the count of credit card fraud, with all terms to be served concurrently.
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 12-11246       Document: 00512465352          Page: 2     Date Filed: 12/09/2013
    No. 12-11246
    Following her release from prison, Thompson began serving her supervised
    release. After violating the terms of her supervised release a second time, the
    district court ordered her to serve an additional 48 months in prison.
    Thompson appeals, claiming that her confrontation right was violated and that
    her sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
    I. Background
    Thompson began supervised release in December 2006. 1 In March 2008,
    the district court revoked her supervised release and imposed an additional
    term of imprisonment, to be followed by supervised release. 2 Three months
    after Thompson was released from this additional period of imprisonment, the
    Government petitioned to revoke her supervised release, asserting that she
    violated her conditions of release when she failed: (1) to report in person within
    72 hours of release to the probation office in the district of her release; (2) to
    notify her probation officer before any change in residence or employment; and
    (3) to permit her probation officer to visit her at any time or anywhere.
    Thompson did not admit or deny any of the allegations of the revocation
    petition.
    In support of its revocation petition, the Government sought to offer the
    testimony of Jamil Tirhi, the Senior United States Probation Officer for the
    Northern District of Texas. He was not Thompson’s probation officer; however,
    Thompson’s probation officer, Kathleen Lamour, was not available to testify at
    the time of the revocation hearing. The district court suggested a continuance
    until Lamour would be available, but the Government declined.
    1While Thompson entered her guilty plea in the District of Alaska, jurisdiction was
    transferred to the Northern District of Texas following her release from prison in 2006.
    2 This initial punishment for the violation of her terms of supervised release is not the
    subject of this appeal.
    2
    Case: 12-11246      Document: 00512465352         Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/09/2013
    No. 12-11246
    Tirhi testified that he was “familiar” with the conditions of release
    violations lodged against Thompson. He further testified that Thompson failed
    to report to the probation office upon release from imprisonment and that it
    was his understanding that Thompson traveled to Virginia after her release,
    where she was arrested under a warrant issued for her failure to report to the
    probation office within 72 hours of release from imprisonment. Thompson did
    not object to Tirhi’s testimony, and she did not provide any contradictory
    proof. 3
    The district court found that Thompson violated her parole conditions,
    and therefore revoked her supervised release, imposing a cumulative prison
    sentence of 48 months. The district court did not impose further supervised
    release. Thompson timely appealed, arguing that the district court erred by
    violating her confrontation right when it admitted hearsay at the revocation
    hearing and that the sentence is plainly unreasonable.
    II. Standard of Review
    Because Thompson did not object to Tirhi’s testimony or the length of
    her sentence in the district court, we review only for plain error. See FED. R.
    CRIM. P. 52(b); Puckett v. United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009). Plain error
    review involves four steps:
    First, there must be an error or defect—some sort of deviation from a
    legal rule—that has not been intentionally relinquished or
    abandoned . . . . Second, the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather
    than subject to reasonable dispute. Third, the error must have affected
    the appellant’s substantial rights . . . . [F]inally, if the above three prongs
    are satisfied, the court of appeals has the discretion to remedy the error.
    3 During allocution, Thompson claimed that she spoke to Lamour about her lack of
    residence and that she “self-surrendered” in Virginia; she did not deny having left Texas in
    violation of her release conditions or her failure to report to the probation office.
    3
    Case: 12-11246    Document: 00512465352       Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/09/2013
    No. 12-11246
    
    Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
    III. Discussion
    A. Confrontation Clause
    A supervisee enjoys conditional liberty only and is not entitled to all
    rights applicable in a criminal prosecution. Morrissey v. Brewer, 
    408 U.S. 471
    ,
    480 (1972).    However, because a revocation hearing puts “a person’s
    liberty . . . at stake,” a supervisee has a due process right to “a fair and
    meaningful opportunity to refute and challenge adverse evidence to assure
    that the court’s relevant findings are based on verified facts.” United States v.
    Grandlund, 
    71 F.3d 507
    , 509–10 (5th Cir. 1995), opinion clarified, 
    77 F.3d 811
    (5th Cir. 1996). Thus, a defendant in a revocation hearing has the “qualified
    right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” 
    Id. at 510;
    see also
    FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C). There must be a specific finding of good cause
    when confrontation is not allowed. 
    Grandlund, 71 F.3d at 510
    n.6; United
    States v. McCormick, 
    54 F.3d 214
    , 221 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that a defendant
    in supervised release revocation proceedings has “the right to confront and
    cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds
    good cause for not allowing confrontation)” (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted)).
    Tirhi was not the probation officer assigned to Thompson’s case. His
    testimony did not reveal personal knowledge of Thompson’s alleged violations,
    nor did he reference any official records kept by the probation office. Further,
    the Government made no attempt to show good cause as to why Thompson
    should be denied the opportunity to confront Lamour, who was the primary
    source of the evidence supporting her alleged violations. See FED. R. CRIM. P.
    32.1(b)(2)(C); see also Farrish v. Miss. State Parole Bd., 
    836 F.2d 969
    , 978 (5th
    Cir. 1988) (finding that due process was violated when a parole board, without
    allowing confrontation, considered hearsay statements from a witness who
    4
    Case: 12-11246      Document: 00512465352        Page: 5    Date Filed: 12/09/2013
    No. 12-11246
    alleged that the parolee sold him marijuana, even though the parole revocation
    turned on a credibility determination of the witness). Thus, we conclude that
    there was error in admitting Tirhi’s testimony, and this error was arguably
    clear. 4 See 
    Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135
    .
    However, plain error review recognizes that there is a consequence to the
    failure to object. See 
    Puckett, 556 U.S. at 134
    (noting that enforcement of “the
    contemporaneous-objection rule” serves to discourage a litigant from
    “remaining silent about his objection and belatedly raising the error only if the
    case does not conclude in his favor”). It would have been simple in a case such
    as this for defense counsel to have challenged the evidence through hearsay
    objections or objections to the absence of Lamour.              By acquiescing in the
    proceeding in Lamour’s absence, defense counsel made it appear that it was
    acceptable to present the evidence through Tirhi. Thus, Thompson must show
    that the error affected her substantial rights by demonstrating that, except for
    the error, the district court would not have revoked her term of supervised
    release or that there is a reasonable probability that she would have received
    a lesser sentence. United States v. Davis, 
    602 F.3d 643
    , 647 (5th Cir. 2010);
    see also United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 741 (1993) (holding that in a
    plain error case, the burden is on the individual claiming the violation to
    demonstrate prejudice).
    The district court was authorized to revoke Thompson’s supervised
    release if it found by a preponderance of the evidence that Thompson had
    violated any condition of her release.               See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
    U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a)(3), 7B1.3(a)(2). Although Tirhi’s hearsay testimony was
    the only proof offered, Thompson’s entire argument is that Lamour—whom
    4 In light of our disposition of the other prongs of plain error review, we need not
    determine how clear the error was.
    5
    Case: 12-11246    Document: 00512465352     Page: 6   Date Filed: 12/09/2013
    No. 12-11246
    Thompson claims is a “more knowledgeable witness” than Tirhi—might have
    “lent . . . credence” to Thompson’s claim that sufficient “mitigating factors”
    existed to preclude revocation or result in a lesser sentence. The claim of
    mitigation is arguably an implicit acknowledgment of guilt. Cf. United States
    v. Wood, 
    58 F.3d 637
    , 
    1995 WL 371100
    at *4 n.4 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished
    but precedential, see 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.3) (noting that a defendant’s “contention
    that he was pressured into participating was not a denial of guilt, but more in
    the nature of a request for mitigation of punishment”).           Furthermore,
    Thompson’s failure to cross-examine Tirhi, present any contradictory
    testimony at her revocation hearing, or even argue that the untruth of Tirhi’s
    basic testimony means that “we cannot conclude that the State’s failure to
    produce [Thompson’s] parole officer as a hearing witness contributed to the
    revocation decision.” See Williams v. Johnson, 
    171 F.3d 300
    , 307 (5th Cir.
    1999) (finding no violation of a defendant’s due process rights where the parole
    officer was not made available, despite the defendant’s request he be made
    available because the defendant claimed that the parole officer would provide
    mitigating testimony as to why he left Texas in violation of his release
    conditions).   Indeed, where the testimony concerning the violation is
    uncontroverted, there is sufficient indicia of reliability from which a “district
    court could reasonably conclude that [Thompson] violated the terms of [her]
    supervised release.” See 
    McCormick, 54 F.3d at 226
    . Compare United States
    v. Delbosque, 463 F. App’x 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (finding
    harmless error where the defendant established minimal interest in cross-
    examining the lab technician who prepared the report leading to his parole
    revocation), with United States v. Justice, 430 F. App’x 274, 278 (5th Cir. 2011)
    (unpublished) (holding that error was not harmless where the charges against
    the defendant turned on a credibility choice between the defendant and the
    hearsay declarant). Even on appeal, Thompson admits being in Virginia and
    6
    Case: 12-11246        Document: 00512465352          Page: 7     Date Filed: 12/09/2013
    No. 12-11246
    does not deny the Government’s allegations; therefore, she cannot demonstrate
    a reasonable probability that her sentence would have been less if Lamour had
    been available to testify. 5
    B. Sentencing
    Thompson does not challenge the calculation of her revocation sentences
    set forth in the petition that was before the district court. Instead, she argues
    that the sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court imposed
    the revocation sentences cumulatively, undervalued mitigating circumstances,
    gave insufficient consideration to the Sentencing Guidelines policy statements,
    placed too much emphasis on prior convictions, and finally, sentenced her
    beyond her level of culpability. 6
    Thompson cannot show that there was any clear or obvious violation of
    her legal rights because the court was statutorily authorized to impose 48
    months imprisonment, which is the maximum sentence allowed by the
    revocation statute. 7 See § 3583(e)(3); see also 
    Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135
    . Nor did
    any impermissible effect result from the cumulation of the sentences because
    5 In fact, Thompson’s claims are that she contacted her parole officer, she was
    dismissed from the homeless shelter she had originally given as her address, and she
    surrendered to police custody when she was in Virginia. She does not deny leaving Texas in
    violation of her parole or her failure to report to the parole office. Her sole claim is that the
    court might have found that her relocation to Virginia involved mitigating factors.
    6 On appeal, Thompson argues that the proper standard of review for her sentencing
    claim should be reasonableness. However, she concedes this is against circuit precedent. See,
    e.g., United States v. Receskey, 
    699 F.3d 807
    , 809 (5th Cir. 2012) (explicitly rejecting
    reasonableness review for sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release). We
    review her unpreserved sentencing claim for plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 
    580 F.3d 256
    , 259–60 (5th Cir. 2009) (applying plain error review where the defendant did not
    challenge his sentence at the parole revocation hearing).
    7The district court was authorized to sentence Thompson to 20 months (3 years minus
    16 months on previous revocation) for each count of violating § 1344(2), a class B felony, and
    8 months (2 years minus 16 months on previous revocation) for violating § 1029(a)(2), a class
    C felony. § 3583(e)(3).
    7
    Case: 12-11246    Document: 00512465352      Page: 8   Date Filed: 12/09/2013
    No. 12-11246
    a district court may order that multiple sentences imposed at the same time
    be served consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); see also 
    Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 260
    (“The district court has the discretion to order that a sentence imposed
    upon the revocation of supervised release run concurrently with or
    consecutively to other sentences.”).       As this court has noted, revocation
    sentences exceeding the policy statements range but not exceeding the
    statutory maximum have been upheld as a matter of routine.              See, e.g.,
    
    Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 265
    (holding that the district court did not commit plain
    error because the sentence imposed did not exceed the statutory maximum);
    United States v. Neal, 212 F. App’x 328, 330–31 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished)
    (same); United States v. Weese, 199 F. App’x 394, 395–96 (5th Cir. 2006)
    (unpublished) (same). We need not reach the merits of her claims for why the
    sentence is unreasonable because Thompson “cannot demonstrate any error at
    all.” United States v. Teuschler, 
    689 F.3d 397
    , 400 (5th Cir. 2012).
    AFFIRMED.
    8