United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 17-1555 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

JUAN CARLOS BODON-LESPIER, 

Defendant, Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

[Hon. Juan M. Pérez-Giménez, U.S. District Judge] 

Before 

Howard, Chief Judge, 

Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges. 

Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, Vivianne M. 

Marrero, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Supervisor, Appeals 

Section, and Andrew S. McCutcheon, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, on brief for appellant. 

Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Mariana 

E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, 

Appellate Division, and Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Senior Appellate Counsel, on brief for appellee. 

December 18, 2018 
- 2 - 

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Juan Carlos Bodon-Lespier 

("Bodon") appeals from the district court's order revoking his 

supervised release. In 2009, Bodon was sentenced to a 78-month 

term of imprisonment for a drug offense, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

846, 860--later reduced to 63 months, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)--and 

an eight-year period of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a); 

21 U.S.C. § 860(a). 

In April 2016, while on supervised release, Bodon was 

arrested for possessing with intent to distribute marijuana and 

cocaine, in violation of Puerto Rico law, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 24, 

§ 2401(a)(1). The terms of his supervised release conditions 

forbade him from possessing controlled substances or committing a 

federal, state or local crime. If such possession were proved in 

federal court by a preponderance of the evidence, as determined by 

the judge, Bodon's term of supervised release could be revoked, 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 

The district judge held a two-day hearing at which both 

the government and Bodon called and cross-examined witnesses. 

After weighing and evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, a 

task within the province of the district judge in a revocation 

proceeding, United States v. Portalla, 985 F.2d 621, 622 (1st Cir. 

1993), the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the defendant unlawfully possessed and distributed a 
- 3 - 

controlled substance and revoked Bodon's supervised release. 

Bodon now appeals. 

Nominally the standard of review when evaluating a 

district judge's decision to revoke a term of supervised release 

is for abuse of discretion, United States v. Wright, 812 F.3d 27, 

30 (1st Cir. 2016), but in certain contexts the phrase "abuse of 

discretion" is "perhaps more misleading than helpful," United 

States v. Bater, 594 F.3d 51, 54 & n.1 (1st Cir. 2010). In the 

first instance the district court asks whether a violation of 

supervised release conditions has been shown by a preponderance of 

the evidence, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Whalen, 82 

F.3d 528, 531-32 (1st Cir. 1996); if appealed, that factual finding 

is reviewed for clear error, id.; see also United States v. RamosGonzález, 775 F.3d 483, 490 n.5 (1st Cir. 2015). 

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the government, Wright, 812 F.3d at 29, this revocation case is a 

clear affirmance. Police learned from an anonymous tip that Bodon 

was selling drugs outside of a residence in Ponce, Puerto Rico. 

Two detectives responded; one had previously arrested Bodon in 

2007 for firearms violations. The officers saw Bodon holding a 

black backpack and later saw him hand a plastic bag they believed 

to be marijuana to a man who had recently gotten out of a parked 

car. 
- 4 - 

The officers called for backup and arrested Bodon, who 

attempted to flee by climbing onto a balcony, and also arrested 

another man, one Martínez, who appeared also to be involved in the 

transaction. Martínez claimed that the backpack Bodon had been 

seen carrying belonged to him. The backpack contained cocaine, 

marijuana, cash, and a digital weight scale. 

As the finder of fact the district judge has "broad legal 

power to determine witness credibility." Portalla, 985 F.2d at 

622. Here, the district judge considered the witnesses and other 

evidence offered by the defense--one witness was Bodon's wife--

and found them unpersuasive. Martínez claimed to own the backpack 

but the court appeared to accept the officers' testimony that Bodon 

was seen holding the drugs and making the transfer to a customer. 

Bodon's counsel questioned the anonymous tip and faulted 

the officers for not following internal department procedures 

(requiring that they keep detailed records of anonymous tips on 

designated official forms), but the judge reasonably accepted the 

officers' testimony. That Bodon attempted to flee and was caught 

with the drugs lends further weight to the officers' description 

of the drug transaction. 

Finally, Bodon says that the district court violated his 

due process rights. A revocation is less draped in due process 

than a criminal trial, United States v. Tapia-Escalera, 356 F.3d 

181, 184 (1st Cir. 2004), but Bodon had ample opportunity to cross-
- 5 - 

examine government witnesses. Bodon says that testimony from two 

defense witnesses was improperly excluded, but it was considered 

in the form of a proffer and found irrelevant or cumulative. 

Affirmed.