United States v. Herman Turlich, Jr. , 440 F. App'x 282 ( 2011 )

Case: 11-30002 Document: 00511590279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 1, 2011
No. 11-30002
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
HERMAN TURLICH, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:02-CR-212-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Herman Turlich, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the district court
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months of
imprisonment. He argues that the district court erred by revoking his
supervised release instead of ordering him into a drug treatment program.
The district court permissibly found that Turlich possessed and used
controlled substances. See United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 181, 182 (5th Cir.
1992). Unless the district court found that he was eligible to be ordered into
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-30002 Document: 00511590279 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2011
No. 11-30002
drug treatment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), revocation of supervised release was
mandatory. § 3583(g)(1). Turlich committed numerous violations of the terms
of his supervised release, twice testing positive for drug use, twice failing to
report to his probation officer, and incurring a state court conviction of simple
criminal damage to property. He did not merely fail a drug test. The district
court did not err by finding that no exception was warranted pursuant to
§ 3583(d). Because the district court did not apply the exception, the mandatory
revocation of supervised release was not an abuse of discretion. United States
v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
2