FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCTOB ER 18, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 61 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 2 :0 3- cr-0 01 84 -MEF- CSC- 1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,

ve rs us DATRIST MCC ALL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt - App el la nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 8, 2 01 0) Befo re BARKETT, HULL and W ILSON, Cir cu it Ju dg es
.

PER CURI AM:
Datr is t M cCa ll ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s re vo cat io n o f hi s t erm ofsu pe rv is ed rel eas e an d i ts im po si ti on of a 23 -m on th pri so n s en te nc e. He arg ue s th at th e d is tri ct co ur t (1 ) ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t ha t h e v io la te d

co nd it io ns of h is su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d (2 ) erre d i n s en te nc in g h im to 23 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t u po n re vo cat io n o f th e rel eas e. Beca us e th e g ov ern m en t p ro ve d b y
a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t M cCa ll vi ol at ed co nd it io ns of h is su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d b ecau se th e st at ut or y m ax im um ter m of i m pr is on m en t fo r McC al l’s vi ol at io ns is co rrec tl y

cal cu la te d a s 2 4 m on th s— no t o ne y ear a s h e as se rts —we affi rm
. I. Revo ca ti on of Su pe rv is ed Rele as e McC al l arg ue s th at th e di st ric t c o u r t a bu se d it s di sc ret io n whe n it de ci de d to di sr eg ard th e pr io r st at em en ts of hi s gi rlf rie nd , Adr ia nn a Jo hn so n, who te st ifi ed at McC al l’s J an ua ry

5, 2 01 0, p rel im in ary he ari ng th at he was no t th e pe rs on who sh ot he r. We r e v ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s rev oc at io n of a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e f o r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Vela sq ue z Vela sq ue

z , 52 4 F.3 d 12 48 , 12 52 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3) , a di st ric t

co ur t m ay rev ok e a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e if i t f i n ds by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt vi ol at ed a co nd it io n of th e rel eas e. U n i te d St at es v. Sw eet in g , 43 7 F.3 d 11 05 , 11 07 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ). W e ge ne ral ly de cl in e

2to rev ie w a di st ric t c o u r t ’s de te rm in at io ns as to a wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y . Se e Uni te d

St at es v. Co

pe la nd , 20 F.3 d 41 2, 41 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ The cred ib il it y of a wit ne s s i s in th e pr ov in ce of th e fact fin de r an d th is co ur t wil l no t or di na ril y

rev ie w th e fac tfi nd er’s d et erm in at io n o f cre di bi li ty.”). The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n wh e n i t de ci de d to di sr eg ard
Jo hn so n ’s p r i o r te st im on y an d po li ce st at em en t. Her te st im on y at th e pr el im in ary he ari ng was in co ns is te nt wit h he r po li ce st at em en t id en ti fy in g McC al l as th e sh oo te r; sh e ev en reca nt ed th at te st i mo n y l a t er in th e sa m e pr el im in ary he ari ng
. Ano th er wit ne ss ’s te st im on y at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng es ta bl is he d th at Jo hn so n was “ a

co m pu ls iv e li ar.” Mo reo ve r, be c a u s e J o h n so n di d no t te st ify at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , t h e di st ric t co ur t ha d no op po rtu ni ty t o as se ss he r cred ib il it y . Giv en th es e fact or s, t he di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh en it di sr eg ard ed Jo hn so n’s
pr io r st at em en ts alt og et he r . The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y cred it ed th e te st im on y an d swo rn s t a t e men ts of Oph el ia Sm it h, who id en ti fie d McC al l as th e sh oo te r aft er wit ne ss in g th e sh oo ti ng in
Jo hn so n’s ap art m en t. Sm it h’s te st im on y was co ns is te nt wit h th e swo rn st at em en t sh e
ga ve th e po li ce so on aft er th e sh oo ti ng an d th e ph ot og rap hi c ev id en ce of bu ll et ho le s in Jo hn so n’s ap art m en t. In li gh t of th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at Sm it h’s te st im on y

was cred ib le , th e go ve rn m en t pr ov ed by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at McC al l

3vi ol at ed th e co nd it io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e whe n he po ss es se d a fir earm an d sh ot

hi s gi rlf rie nd

. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in rev ok in g McC al l’s s up erv is ed rel eas e.

II. Impo si ti on of

23 -Mo nt h S en te nc e McC al l f u r t h e r arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in se nt en ci ng hi m to 23

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Und er hi s in te rp ret at io n of 18 U .S.C. § 35 83 (e), hi s

m ax im um se nt en ce is pr op erl y cal cu la te d as 12 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. H e a r g u e s
t h a t th e of

fen se s rel ev an t to cal cu la ti ng th e le ng th of hi s se nt en ce are th e two no n fel on ie s t ha t re su lt ed in hi s s eco nd ter m of s up erv is ed rel eas e. Ord in ari ly, we rev ie w de no vo a se nt en ce im po se d pu rs ua nt to th e rev oc at io n of a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, Uni te d St at es v. Maz ar ky , 49 9 F.3 d 12 46 , 12 48 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ), bu t whe re an ap pe ll an t arg ue s fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al th at hi s se nt en ce

ex ceed s th e st at ut or y m ax im um , as McC al l do es he re, w e wil l rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n

erro r. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Na sh , 43 8 F.3 d 13 02 , 13 04 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ) 1 (“ W e rev ie w th e te rm s of a su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, bu t whe re th e de fen da nt fai ls to ob

ject at th e di st ric t co ur t, we rev ers e on ly fo r pl ai n erro r.”). “ To

es ta bl is h pl ai n erro r, a de fen da nt m us t sh ow th ere is (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th at is pl ai n, an d (3 )

McCall has aba

ndoned any

arg ument as to the re asonable ness of his sentenc e bec ause he 1 failed to off

er a rg ument on this iss ue in his initi al brief

. See U nited States v. Je rnigan , 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). 4th at affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Uni te d St at es v. Mor ia rt y , 42 9 F.3 d 10 12 , 10 19 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e no erro r, pl ai n or oth erwi se , be cau se it co rrec tl y cal cu la te d th e s t at ut or y m ax im um te rm of im

pr is on m en t as 24 m on th s. Upo n

rev ok in g a ter m

of s up erv is ed rel eas e, a co ur t m ay :
req ui re th e de fen da nt to se rv e in pr is on al l or pa rt of th e te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e au th or iz ed by st at ut e fo r th e of fe n s e t ha t re su lt ed in su ch te rm of su pe rv is ed re le as e . . . ex cep t th at a de fen da nt who se te rm is rev ok ed un de r th is pa rag rap h m ay no t be req ui red to se rv e o n a ny suc h re vo cat io n . . . m or e th an 2 years i n p ris on if s uc h o ffen se is a Cl as s C or D fe lo ny .
. . . 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Co nt rary t o McC al l’s in te rp ret at io n, th e im po si ti on of pe na lt ie s fo r vi ol at io ns of co nd it io ns of a su pe rv is ed rel eas e is ba se d

on th e of fen se co nd uc t th at re su lt ed in th e or ig in al co nv ic ti on , no t th e of fen se

co nd uc t th at tri gg ered a ne w te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. S e e Jo hn so n v. Uni te d
St at es , 5 2 9 U

. S

. 69 4, 70 1 (2 00 0) (“ W e
. . . a tt rib ut e po st rev oc at io n pe na lt ie s to th e

or ig in al co nv ic ti on .”). The co nd uc t th at res ul te d in McC al l’s or ig in al co nv ic ti on was

a Cl as s C fel on y

—t he po ss es si on of a fir earm by a co nv ic te d fel on , a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). Thu s, u nd er § 35 83 (e)( 3) , t he m ax im um ter m of i m pr is on m en t fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n of McC al l’s sup erv is ed rel eas e is two y ears
. Acco rd in gl y , we fin d t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r in im po si ng a 23 -m on th sen te nc e. III. Co nc lu si on

5The di st ric t co ur t (1 ) di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n fin di ng th at McC al l

vi ol at ed co nd it io ns of hi s te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d (2 ) pr op erl y se nt en ced hi m
to 23 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t u po n re vo cat io n o f th e rel eas e.

AFFIRMED.

6