Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01941/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01941-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Fuehrer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 09-1941

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Mark Fuehrer,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Iowa.

[UNPUBLISHED]

______________

Submitted: April 16, 2010

 Filed: July 19, 2010

________________

Before BYE, JOHN R. GIBSON and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Mark Fuehrer appeals from the 24-month sentence that the district court1

imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. Fuehrer argues that the court

violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by questioning him

about his supervised release violations. He also argues that his sentence is

unreasonable. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 09-1941 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Entry ID: 3684683
-2-

In 2001, Fuehrer pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine and was sentenced to

92 months’ imprisonment and six years of supervised release. Fuehrer began his first

term of supervised release in June 2006. In October 2006, the district court found that

Fuehrer violated the conditions of his supervised release by using cocaine and alcohol.

The court revoked Fuehrer’s supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months’

imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Fuehrer began his second

term of supervised release in October 2007. In January 2009, the court received a

petition to revoke Fuehrer’s second term of supervised release. Fuehrer admitted that

he violated the conditions of his supervised release by using alcohol, lying to

probation officers, and failing to comply with his alcohol testing program. In lieu of

revoking Fuehrer’s supervised release, the district court modified the conditions of his

supervised release.

In March 2009, the court received another petition to revoke Fuehrer’s

supervised release. The court held a revocation hearing at which Fuehrer, through his

attorney, admitted to violating his supervised release conditions on several occasions

by using alcohol and failing to comply with his alcohol testing program. The court

then questioned Fuehrer about the violations that he admitted. Upon finding that

Fuehrer violated the conditions of his supervised release, the court received

documents and heard arguments from Fuehrer regarding the appropriate remedy for

the violations. The court decided to revoke Fuehrer’s supervised release, and after

determining a Chapter 7 advisory guidelines range of 7 to 13 months’ imprisonment,

the court sentenced Fuehrer to 24 months’ imprisonment. In support of its decision,

the court stated that Fuehrer had repeatedly violated the conditions of his supervised

release by using alcohol and refusing to comply with his alcohol testing program. The

court found that Fuehrer consistently lied to his probation officers about his alcohol

use and stated that the court “has no more resources to offer [him].” 

Relying on United States v. Rapert, 813 F.2d 182 (8th Cir. 1987), Fuehrer

argues that the court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by

Appellate Case: 09-1941 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Entry ID: 3684683
2

While Rapert involved the revocation of probation, we have found it equally

applicable to the revocation of supervised release. See United States v. Kopp, 355

Fed. App’x 981, 983 (8th Cir. 2009) (unpublished per curiam); see also United States

v. Bennett, 561 F.3d 799, 801 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding jurisprudence governing

parole and probation revocation hearings applicable to supervised release hearings).

-3-

questioning him about his supervised release violations during the revocation hearing.

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination permits a person to refuse

to testify in two situations: (1) where the person is compelled to testify against himself

in a criminal prosecution; or (2) where the person is compelled to testify “in any other

proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate

him in future criminal proceedings.” Rapert, 813 F.2d at 185 (quoting Lefkowitz v.

Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). 

In Rapert, we rejected the proposition that a revocation hearing is a “stage of

the criminal prosecution” that gives rise to an automatic right not to testify (situation

one). 813 F.2d at 185.2

 Thus, Fuehrer must show that he was compelled to testify

during the hearing and that “the answers might incriminate him in future criminal

proceedings” (situation two). See Lefkowitz, 414 U.S. at 77. First, Fuehrer cannot

show that he was compelled to testify during the revocation hearing. See Rapert, 813

F.2d at 185. Neither Fuehrer nor his attorney objected or asserted a Fifth Amendment

privilege when the court questioned Fuehrer. Id. (“A person must claim [the

privilege] or he will not be considered to have been compelled within the meaning of

the [Fifth] Amendment.” (quoting Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427 (1984))

(alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted)). Second, Fuehrer previously

admitted the supervised release violations about which the court questioned him. See

id. (“[W]e believe Rapert lost the benefit of the privilege when he agreed to stipulate

to the violations of his probation.”). Finally, even assuming that Fuehrer’s testimony

was compelled, he has made no argument that any of his “answers might incriminate

Appellate Case: 09-1941 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Entry ID: 3684683
-4-

him in future criminal proceedings.” See Lefkowitz, 414 U.S. at 77. Accordingly, we

reject Fuehrer’s Fifth Amendment argument.

Fuehrer also argues that his sentence is unreasonable because there is “no

indication in the record that the court considered any of the mitigating facts” Fuehrer

set forth at the revocation hearing. We disagree. We review Fuehrer’s sentence

“under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Bear Robe, 521

F.3d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 2008). The record shows that the court adequately considered

the documents Fuehrer submitted at the revocation hearing, the statements he made

at the hearing, and the relevant statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Furthermore,

based on Fuehrer’s repeated violations of the conditions of his supervised release by

using alcohol, refusing to comply with his alcohol testing program, and failing to be

honest with his probation officers, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing

Fuehrer to 24 months’ imprisonment. See id.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgement of the district court. 

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1941 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Entry ID: 3684683