Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10496/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10496-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
John Benton Wood
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10496

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN BENTON WOOD, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cr-00014-CDL-MSH-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10496 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10496

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, andGRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Wood appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-one months’ imprisonment. Wood first argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his supervised release based on his positive blood 

test for methamphetamine because that test alone was insufficient 

evidence that he had possessed methamphetamine. Next, he argues that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(A) and his due process rights because the revocation petition failed to provide him with notice that his positive drug 

test for methamphetamine would be a basis for the court’s revocation of his supervised release. After careful review, we affirm. 

 I.

The revocation petition alleges that Wood violated the conditions of his supervised release by having “committed the offenses 

of Driving under the Influence; Impeding Traffic; Drugs to be Kept 

in Original Container; Possession of Methamphetamine; and Possession of Drug Related Objects” in relation to a traffic stop. During 

that traffic stop an officer observed drug-related objects in plain 

view in Wood’s car. A field test of the substance found in Wood’s 

car tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl. The officer 

obtained consent to perform a blood draw. The result of Wood’s 

blood test showed the presence of fentanyl, methamphetamine, 

and Xanax. The officer also testified that Wood had admitted using 

USCA11 Case: 24-10496 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 2 of 7
24-10496 Opinion of the Court 3

drugs within a few days of the stop. When the substance was later 

tested by the Forensic Sciences Division of the Georgia Bureau of 

Investigation the sample was only fentanyl. The forensic chemist 

that performed the lab test testified that the field test for methamphetamine was likely a false positive. At the revocation hearing,

the government first attempted to show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Wood had possessed fentanyl through the lab tests 

of the drug in Wood’s possession on March 21, 2023. The court was 

“uncomfortable making a finding that [Wood’s supervised release] 

should be revoked based upon possession of fentanyl when the petition for revocation specifically alleges methamphetamine.” The 

court then spoke with Wood’s probation officer about how the 

guideline range would change based on the violation. If Wood was 

not found to have possessed meth, his range would be 8-to-14 

months as opposed to the 21-to-24-month range with the violation.

The court noted that the only evidence of Wood’s possession of 

methamphetamine was that it had been in his blood. The district 

court found that Wood violated the terms of his supervised release. 

Wood timely appealed. 

II.

We review a district court’s conclusion that a defendant violated the terms of his supervised release for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). “A district court’s findings of fact are binding on this court

unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 

(11th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks omitted).

USCA11 Case: 24-10496 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10496

III.

A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release

if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant 

violated a condition of his supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Two 

federal laws govern defendants’ interactions with drugs while they 

are on supervised release. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1), a court 

must revoke a defendant’s supervised release if he “possesses a controlled substance.” The same is true if a defendant “tests positive 

for illegal controlled substances more than 3 times over the course 

of 1 year.” Id. § 3583(g)(4). Wood argues that inferring drug possession from a single positive drug test under § 3583(g)(1) contradicts

§ 3583(g)(4), which makes revocation mandatory only after three 

positive tests. Wood appeals to the canon of construction that says 

that we generally construe a statute so that “no clause, sentence, 

or word” is rendered “superfluous, void, or insignificant.” In re Walter Energy, Inc., 911 F.3d 1121, 1146 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting TRW 

Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)). Based on these two provisions, Congress did not intend for courts to equate testing positive 

for a controlled substance and possessing a controlled substance. 

While the impact of the surplusage canon of construction 

regarding the court’s interpretation of § 3583(g)(1) and § 3583(g)(4) 

is apparent and duly noted, our precedent in Almand requires us to

find that district courts have discretion to find that a positive drug 

test is evidence of drug possession. 992 F.2d at 318. The defendant

there argued that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his supervised release partially on the basis that he had tested 

USCA11 Case: 24-10496 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 4 of 7
24-10496 Opinion of the Court 5

positive for marijuana and cocaine, which the government claimed 

was sufficient evidence to support revocation for drug possession 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Almand, 992 F.2d at 318. The defendant 

specifically argued that the positive test merely showed that he had 

used the drugs, not that he had possessed them. Id. We rejected 

this argument and concluded that the district court did not clearly 

err when it “exercised its factfinding power” in determining from 

the available evidence that the defendant had possessed a controlled substance and gave no indication that it believed that it was 

required to equate use with possession. Id.

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by 

revoking Wood’s supervised release based on the positive drug test 

for methamphetamine because it was permitted to infer from that 

test and his uncontested admission that he had used drugs that he 

had possessed methamphetamine, in violation of the conditions of 

his supervised release.

IV.

“Defendants involved in revocation proceedings are entitled 

to certain minimal due process requirements.” United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 114 (11th Cir. 1994). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 incorporates those due process requirements in revocation proceedings. Id. Among other things, defendants are entitled 

to “written notice of the alleged violation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32.1(b)(2)(A).

In United States v. Evers, the former Fifth Circuit considered 

whether a defendant was given adequate written notice of the 

USCA11 Case: 24-10496 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 24-10496

alleged violation of his probation for purposes of the hearing where 

the government’s motion for revocation merely said, “[a]rrest and 

possession of marihuana on November 24, 1974.” 534 F.2d 1186, 

1187–88 (5th Cir. 1976).1 The court explained “[a] revocation hearing need not be as rigid or as formal as a criminal trial either with 

respect to notice or specification of charges, fairness of the proceedings being the prime factor.” Id. at 1188.

Here, the district court did not violate Rule 32.1(b)(2)(A) or 

Wood’s due process rights when it revoked his supervised release 

based on his positive blood test for methamphetamine because 

Wood received adequate notice in the petition that drug charges 

arising out of the traffic stop might be a basis for the court’s revocation of his supervised release. The government’s switch from using the lab test for fentanyl to the blood test for methamphetamine

as the evidentiary basis for the revocation might not have provided

ideal notice and may have come as a surprise to Wood. But the 

revocation petition adequately described the violation, and it need 

not specifically allege that Wood’s blood test would be the proffered evidence, especially in light of the factual connection between the test and the traffic stop described in the petition. 

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

finding that Wood violated the conditions of his supervised release,

1 We are bound by decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before 

October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981)

(en banc). 

USCA11 Case: 24-10496 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 6 of 7
24-10496 Opinion of the Court 7

and it did not violate Rule 32.1(b)(2)(A) or Wood’s due process 

rights when it revoked his supervised release. We affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-10496 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 7 of 7