UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

GERALD LAMONT OLDEN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 17-5008 

(D.C. No. 4:04-CR-00071-TCK-1) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This appeal involves a disagreement over whether the defendant 

admitted that he had committed a crime. The government alleges that the 

defendant admitted a crime; the defendant denies doing so, claiming that 

he admitted only certain allegations that did not constitute crimes. The 

district court agreed with the government, and we affirm under the plainerror standard. 

 

*

 We conclude that oral argument would not materially help us to 

decide this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

Thus, we are deciding the appeal based on the briefs. 

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

But our order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

July 27, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

The district court found the commission of a crime based on the 

defendant’s admission. The district court revoked supervised release based 

on the defendant’s violation of his conditions. The court then imposed a 

new sentence based on a guideline range of 21 to 27 months. This 

guideline range would have applied only if the defendant had violated the 

condition prohibiting the commission of another crime; here, the 

government claimed that the defendant had committed a crime consisting 

of a false statement to a federal officer. 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).1

 The 

defendant acknowledges that he admitted violating some of the conditions, 

but insists that he did not admit the commission of a crime involving a 

false statement. And in the absence of such an admission, the defendant 

contends that the district court committed plain error by finding that he 

had violated the condition prohibiting the commission of a crime. 

Any alleged error would not have been obvious. The defendant 

acknowledges that he failed to object in district court and that this failure 

triggers the plain-error standard. Under this standard, relief would be 

available only if the district court had committed an obvious error. United 

States v. Pablo, 696 F.3d 1280, 1290 (10th Cir. 2012). Applying this 

 

1

 The district court found nine other violations. But those violations 

would not have triggered a guideline range of 21 to 27 months. 
3 

standard, we conclude that if the district court had erred, the error would 

not have been obvious.2

 

To determine whether the defendant’s statements constituted an 

admission, we consider the totality of circumstances. United States v. Fay, 

547 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2008). The totality of circumstances could 

reasonably have indicated an admission that the defendant had violated 

§ 1001(a). 

In seeking revocation of supervised release, the government alleged 

false statements to the probation office regarding the defendant’s address, 

vehicles, and telephone number. At the hearing, the district court asked 

defense counsel whether the allegations were admitted or in dispute. 

Defense counsel responded: “They’re not in dispute, sir. We had intended 

to waive the right to have the hearing today and stipulate to the 

allegations.” R., vol. II at 34. With this statement, the court asked the 

defendant if he understood what his attorney had just said. The defendant 

answered that he did. Id. To this point, the admission appeared airtight. 

But the defendant relies on what happened next. The court recounted 

the allegations and asked the defendant if they were true. Id. at 35. He 

answered: “Some of it is, Your Honor.” Id. He explained that the issue 

with his telephone was a misunderstanding, but admitted that he had driven 

 

2

 We need not decide whether an error took place. 
4 

his cousin’s vehicle and had not told his probation officer that he was in 

the process of moving, which he acknowledged “was wrong.” Id. 

The defendant points to his comment at the revocation hearing that 

only “[s]ome of” the allegations were true. See id. But the defendant then 

admitted that he had driven his cousin’s vehicle and had not told his 

probation officer that he was moving, which were two of the things he was 

accused of lying about. Although the defendant minimized the severity of 

his false statements, he did not deny making them with the knowledge that 

they were false. 

In light of this exchange, the district court did not commit an obvious 

error in concluding that these false statements had constituted a crime 

under § 1001. Thus, the district court did not commit plain error by finding 

the violation of a supervised-release condition involving the commission of 

a crime. 

Affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Robert E. Bacharach 

Circuit Judge