Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-19-04134/USCOURTS-ca6-19-04134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Henderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0231n.06

No. 19-4134

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PAUL HENDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, GIBBONS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Paul Henderson appeals the 

judgment of the district court sentencing him to 14 months’ incarceration for violating three 

conditions of his supervised release. Henderson argues that the district court failed to ensure that

he knowingly and voluntarily admitted to an allegation that he possessed scheduled drugs and drug 

paraphernalia. The defendant thus claims that the district court should have conducted an

evidentiary hearing to determine his culpability regarding that violation. To the extent that 

Henderson can establish error in this matter, such error was harmless and did not affect the 

sentence imposed upon him. We thus affirm the district court’s judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2011, Henderson pleaded guilty in federal district court to distribution of crack cocaine. 

The district court sentenced him to serve 52 months in prison, the federal sentence to commence 

after completion of service of an Ohio state sentence, and to be followed by three years of 

 Case: 19-4134 Document: 17-2 Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 1
No. 19-4134, United States v. Henderson

-2-

supervised release. Pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), that 52-month sentence 

later was reduced to 42 months, and Henderson began serving the supervised release portion of his 

sentence on January 25, 2018.

In July 2019, Henderson’s probation officer reported that the defendant had left the 

jurisdiction without permission and had tested positive for cocaine use during a random drug 

screen. As a result, the district court ordered Henderson to submit to location monitoring for 90 

days starting August 6, 2019, meaning that he was required to obtain permission from his probation 

officer to leave his residence for any purpose other than for work, to obtain medical treatment, or 

to attend religious services. Other conditions of supervised release previously imposed upon 

Henderson—including not possessing a firearm or ammunition, not possessing any illegal 

controlled substance, participating in drug treatment and testing, participating in mental health 

testing, working toward a Certificate of General Educational Development (GED), avoiding all 

contact with gang members, and submitting to searches of his person and residence “based upon 

reasonable suspicion of contraband or evidence of a violation of a condition of release”—remained 

in effect.

Unfortunately for Henderson, his probation officer filed a second violation report in 

September 2019, this time outlining four violations of the terms of the defendant’s supervised 

release. Violation 1 alleged that “Henderson made numerous unauthorized stops since being 

enrolled in the location monitoring program.” Violation 2 alleged that “Henderson failed to enroll 

in GED courses since beginning his term of supervised release.” Violation 3 alleged that, during 

a search of Henderson’s residence, law enforcement officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia. 

And finally, Violation 4 alleged that, during that same search of Henderson’s residence, officers 

recovered a revolver and 46 rounds of ammunition. The violation report set forth the maximum 

 Case: 19-4134 Document: 17-2 Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 2
No. 19-4134, United States v. Henderson

-3-

statutory penalty for the violations, as well as noting that the applicable United States Sentencing 

Guidelines range of punishment, if the district court were to find that all the violations occurred,

would be 21–27 months.

At the hearing convened to determine whether Henderson violated the terms of his 

supervised release, defense counsel announced to the district court that “Mr. Henderson would 

admit as to violations 1, 2, and 3, and he is denying as to violation 4, which is the firearm and 

ammunition [allegation].” After hearing sworn testimony from Henderson’s probation officer 

regarding the search of the defendant’s residence, the district court noted that “the ammunition and 

the handgun were found in an unoccupied room. We know that the home is owned by someone 

else, and that the owner has access to the house.” Consequently, the district judge concluded that 

“the Court can’t say by a preponderance of the evidence that the ammunition and firearm are, in 

fact, [the defendant’s].” The district judge thus stated, “I find Mr. Henderson to be in violation of 

supervised release as to violations 1, 2, and 3. I find all three of them to be a grade C violation, 

and with a Criminal History Category of VI, we are looking as an advisory Sentencing Guideline[s] 

range of 8 to 14 months.”

When given the opportunity to address the district court prior to imposition of sentence, 

Henderson confusingly stated, “I don’t know anything about any guns or drugs being in the house,”

before announcing, “I admit I did eight, 1, 2, and 3 I did; I honestly did. I didn’t get my GED 

because I was working two jobs.”1 Then, Henderson again admitted to violating the locationmonitoring term of his supervised release before claiming, “But I ain’t do that other stuff, Ms. 

Gaughan. I ain’t do the other stuff.”

1Because Henderson’s admission that “I did eight” seems incongruous and has no relevance to any other 

evidence or information in the record, it is possible that the reference is a result of a transcription error.

 Case: 19-4134 Document: 17-2 Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 3
No. 19-4134, United States v. Henderson

-4-

Based upon the information before it, the district court then sentenced Henderson “to the 

custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a period of fourteen months. Upon release, Defendant is 

placed on 24 months of supervised release with the same conditions.”

DISCUSSION

We have held explicitly that the full panoply of protections afforded by Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11(b) when accepting a guilty plea from a criminal defendant does not apply 

in supervised release proceedings. United States v. Melton, 782 F.3d 306, 311–12 (6th Cir. 2015). 

Instead, revocation proceedings are governed by the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32.1(b), which provides:

Unless waived by the person, the court must hold the revocation hearing within a 

reasonable time in the district having jurisdiction. The person is entitled to:

(A) written notice of the alleged violation;

(B) disclosure of the evidence against the person;

(C) an opportunity to appear, present evidence, and question any 

adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of 

justice does not require the witness to appear;

(D) notice of the person’s right to retain counsel or to request that 

counsel be appointed if the person cannot obtain counsel; and

(E) an opportunity to make a statement and present any information 

in mitigation.

On appeal, Henderson does not dispute that he knowingly and voluntarily admitted to the 

first two violations alleged by the probation officer—that he visited sites not authorized by the 

district court’s location-monitoring order without obtaining the permission of the probation office

and that he failed to take actions toward obtaining his GED. Not only did defense counsel, without 

objection from Henderson, advise the district court at the start of the revocation hearing that 

Henderson admitted those two violations, but the defendant himself admitted in open court that 

he “didn’t get [his] GED because [he] was working two jobs” and that he violated the conditions 

of his house arrest to spend time with his children and to watch his children participate in athletic 

 Case: 19-4134 Document: 17-2 Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 4
No. 19-4134, United States v. Henderson

-5-

events. The district court thus did not err in finding, without taking additional evidence, that 

Henderson violated at least two conditions of his supervised release.

Henderson also contends, however, that the record contains no evidence that he knew of 

his Rule 32.1 rights or that anyone informed him of the possible sentence he faced for violating 

the terms of his supervised release. Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the record on appeal 

establishes that Henderson’s Rule 32.1(b) rights were protected. He received written notice of the 

allegations against him through receipt of the violation report, and that report detailed both the 

evidence against him and the potential penalties he faced. Henderson appeared, with counsel, at 

the hearing, challenged the testimony of the witness against him, and convinced the district court 

that the most serious allegation could not be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. He also 

was granted the opportunity to address the court directly and availed himself of that chance.

The record also establishes that Henderson was made aware on numerous occasions of the 

sentence facing him should the district court determine that he indeed violated the terms of his 

supervised relief. As noted, the violation report listed the applicable Guidelines sentencing range 

should Henderson be found to have committed the most serious alleged violation—possession of 

a firearm and ammunition—and explained in detail the rationale for arriving at that sentencing 

range. Moreover, twice at the revocation hearing, before the district court imposed its sentence, 

mention was made of the reduced Guidelines range to which Henderson was subject given the fact 

that the firearms violation could not be established by a preponderance of the evidence. First, 

while arguing that the charge regarding possession of a firearm should be dismissed, defense 

counsel noted that the remaining violations were Grade C violations that would change the 

potential sentencing range to 8-14 months. Then, prior to entertaining argument on sentencing, 

 Case: 19-4134 Document: 17-2 Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 5
No. 19-4134, United States v. Henderson

-6-

the district judge noted again that the appropriate sentencing range was 8-14 months. Thus, there 

is no merit to either of these challenges to the district court’s sentencing decision. 

Henderson nevertheless maintains that the sentence imposed upon him is improper because 

he did not admit that he possessed scheduled drugs or drug paraphernalia. Thus, he argues that 

the district court erred in failing to take evidence on the validity of that particular violation 

allegation. As we stated in Melton, however, “a court’s acceptance of an admission to a supervised 

release violation, or stated differently, a court’s acceptance of a waiver of the right to contest the 

revocation of supervised release, is not governed by [the stringent requirements of] Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11.” Melton, 782 F.3d at 311. “Instead, the accused’s admission or waiver 

need only be knowing and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

Before the district court, Henderson did state, “I don’t know anything about any guns or 

drugs being in the house.” He also claimed, after admitting to violating the conditions of his house 

arrest, “But I ain’t do that other stuff, Ms. Gaughan. I ain’t do the other stuff.” Contradicting 

those denials, however, is the defendant’s unambiguous admission that “1, 2, and 3 I did; I honestly 

did.” Because Henderson obviously was conversant with the information contained in the 

probation officer’s violation report, it also is telling that he raised no objection when, within the 

first moments of the hearing, defense counsel responded to an inquiry from the district judge by 

stating, “Your Honor, Mr. Henderson would admit as to violations 1, 2, and 3, and he is denying 

as to violation 4, which is the firearm and ammunition.” Additionally, after the probation officer 

testified about the search of Henderson’s home and the discovery of marijuana and a marijuana 

pipe in the defendant’s bedroom and oxycodone pills in another room, the following conversation 

occurred between the district court and defense counsel, again without objection or contradiction

from Henderson:

 Case: 19-4134 Document: 17-2 Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 6
No. 19-4134, United States v. Henderson

-7-

THE COURT: Okay. So am I correct that the Defendant admits to violation 

No. 1?

MR. MISIEWICZ: Yes[,] your Honor.

THE COURT: Number 2?

MR. MISIEWICZ: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Number 3?

MR. MISIEWICZ: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Denies number 4.

MR. MISIEWICZ: Correct.

Without question, Henderson’s on-again, off-again statements regarding his admissions of 

guilt are troublesome when attempting to ascertain whether, under the totality of the circumstances,

he indeed admitted to violation 3 and waived the right to have an evidentiary hearing on that 

allegation. Even if the district court erred in concluding that such an admission had been made, 

however, we conclude that any such error is harmless. Pursuant to the provisions of § 7B1.1(a)(3) 

of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, violations 1, 2, and 3 each would be considered a 

Grade C violation. Consequently, because Henderson is a criminal-history-category VI offender, 

the sentencing range for his violations, even without consideration of the drug violation, is 8-14 

months. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Because the district court imposed a sentence within that range, 

Henderson was not prejudiced by any possible error committed during the revocation hearing.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, even if the district court erred in this matter by failing to hold 

an evidentiary hearing on the allegation that Henderson was in unlawful possession of scheduled 

drugs, that error was harmless. Even absent a finding that the defendant violated the terms of his 

supervised release by being in possession of those substances, other violations to which Henderson 

readily admitted subjected him to the same additional prison sentence he received. We thus 

AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

 Case: 19-4134 Document: 17-2 Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 7