NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0293n.06 Filed: Apr il 20, 2009 No. 08-4361 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. EA RLUS L EO N WI L L I AM S, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO O P I N I O N

Be for e : B OG G S, C hie f Judg e ; M OORE and SUT TON , C ir c uitJudg e s. KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. At a he ari ngon

Au g us t 21 , 2 00 8, de fe nd a ntappellant Ea

rlus Wil liams a dmitted that he had violated the te rms of his supervised r elea se, and the district court found him to be in violation of his supervised-r elea se conditions. On Octobe r 8, 2008, the dis tr ic t c ourt

se nte nc e d Wil liams t o n ine mon ths of inc arc e ratio n f

or his vio la tio ns. Wil liams appea ls his supervised-re lease revoc ation sentenc e on the g round that his decision to waive a
re vo c a tio n h e ari ngwa s n ot k no wi ng , in te lli g e nt, and

vo lun tary

becau se the dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to
ex p l ai n fu l l y t h e r i gh t s t h at W i l l i am s wa s wa i v i n g. I. BACKG ROUND I n April 1990, Wil liams was cha rg ed i n the United States District Court for the Norther n Di str ic t of

Oh io w ithbe inga

fe lon in p os se ssion of a

fi re arm , p os se ssi ngc oc a ine wi th i nte nt t o distribute, and possessing a firea rm in relation to a drug- traff icking offe nse. On De cembe r 17, 1990,2

Wil liams pleaded guilty

to possessing c ocaine with intent to distribute and to possessing a fire arm in r e la tio n to a dr

ug -t ra ff ic kin g of fe ns e . T he g ov e rnme nt d ism iss e d th e c ount t hat c ha rg e d Wil liams with being a fe lon in p o s s es s i o n of a f irea rm. On January

28, 1991, the district court sente nced Wil liams to 228 mont hs of incar cer ation and thre e y ear s of supervise d rele ase. Wil liams was re lease d from prison and bega n to serve three y ear s of supervised rele ase on September 16, 2006. In April 2008, Wil liams’s probation offic ers r equeste d that a wa rra nt be issued
and a lle g e d tha t Will iams h a d v iol a te d h is s up e rv ise d r e le a se by fa ili ngto m a int a in a

sta ble
re sid e nc e , f

a ili ngto p art ic ipate in d

ru g /a lc oh ol a ft e rc are , f

ail in g to r e po rt

to s c he du le d v isi ts w ith probation off

icer s, and failing to submit monthly supervision repor ts on time. A se cond re quest for supervision modification also alleg ed that Willi ams failed to pa rticipate in the Code- A

- Ph o n e te sting prog ram. In J une 2008, Willi ams signe d a modi fication to his supervised re lease waiving a hea ring
and re qu ir inghim

to l ive in a

Commun ity

Cor re c tio ns Ce nte r ( Or iana

Ho us e ) f or 60 da y s. On June 20 , 2 00 8, Willi a ms b e g an h is r e sid e nc e a t O ri ana Ho us e . H ow e ve r, a

s e c on d r e qu e st fo r a su mmo ns fi le d o n July

15 , 2 00 8, a lle g e d tha t Williams h a d b e e n te rm inate d f ro m O ri ana

Ho us e on J uly 11, 2008, that he had te sted positive for c ocaine , that he had a ssociated with an individual wh o w a s o n pa

ro le , and that he fa ile d to a tte nd his dr ug /a lc oh ol a ft e rc are c ouns e lin g se ssi on s. Th is
re qu e st expl a ine d tha t whe n Williams wa s adm itt e d to Or iana Ho us e , h e be g an to have c he st p a in
and wa s a dmi tte d to the ho sp ita l, wh e re he re ma ine d fo r te n da y s. Up on dis c ha rg e fr om t he ho sp ita l, Willi a ms r e qu e ste d a

me dic a l bed fr om Or iana Ho us e . Or iana Ho us e re fu se d to r e a dmi t Will iams be c a us e the y c ou ld no t pro vi de him

wi th a me dic a l be d a

nd be c a us e he c ou ld n ot g ive the m a medical r elea se stating that he did not need 24-hour nursing car e. At a hea ring on Aug ust 21, 2008, Wil liams admitted to these violations and waived his rig ht to a hear ing r eg ardingthe violations. On3

Se pte mb e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , W i l l i a m s s i g n e d a d o c u m e n t w a i v i n g h i s r i g h t t o a h e ar i n g an d a g r e e ing to participate in a location-monitoring prog ram for thre e months. On September 24, the district court issued an orde r re quiring Wil liams to participate in the location-monitoring prog ram a s a condition of his supervised r elea se. Howeve r, at a

hear ing held on October

8, 2008, the district court lea rned that Wi lliams had
re fu s ed to participate in the location-monitoring prog ram. The district court re viewed the history of Will iams’s ca se, noting that Wil liams had committed a number of violations and that the district court ha d tried to r esolve these violations without incar cer ation. The district cour t stated that it had tried to avoid i ncar cer ating Wil liams in part because of hi s medical condition despite the fac t that the cour t had neve r re ceive d medical doc umentation reg arding the ex tent of t his medical c ondition and its eff

ect on Williams’s li fe. Williams ad mitted that he had re fused to have the locationmonitoring de vice attached and agr eed to waive a hearing in connec tion with this new supervisedrele ase violation. The district c ourt noted that the violation was gr ade C and that Wi lliams had a
cr im in a l h is to r

y le v e l o f V I , s o th e g u id e li n e s r an g e w a s 8 to 1 4 mo n th s o f in c ar c e r a ti o n . A f

ter hear ing f rom Wil liams, the district court sentenc ed Wil liams to 9 months of inca rce ration, with no additional supervised r elea se. Wil l i a m s f

i l e d an u n t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , b u t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt g r an t e d h i s m o t i o nto
e xten d ti me to fi le an a

pp e a l, a llo wi nghim

to f ile his no tic e of

a pp e a l late . O n a

pp e a l Will iams makes one argument, that his decision to waive his rig ht t o a ful l revoc ation hear ing w as not kn ow ing , in te lli g e nt, and

vo lun tary , b e c a

us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

fa ile d to inf

or m Will iams s uf

fi c ie ntl y at t h e h ea ri n g o nAu gu s t2 1 , 2 0 0 8 , o f t h e r i gh t s t h at h e w as wa i v i n g.4 II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review When a district court re vokes an individual’s super vised rele ase, we review that decision for abuse of discretion, its fac t findings f or cle ar e rror , and its leg al conc lusions de novo. United States v. Kontrol , 554 F.3d 1089, 1091- 92 (6th Cir. 2009). We re v i ew d e n ovo the district court’s
c on c lus ion

re g ard ingthe mixe d que sti on of law an d fa c t whe the r a w a ive r w a s k no wi ng , in te lli g e nt, and voluntary
. See U

nited States v. Stove r , 4 7 4 F
. 3 d 9 0 4 , 9 0 8 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 7) ; Lot t v . Co y le , 261 F.3d 594, 610 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Neither Wil liams nor his c ounsel made a contempora

neous objec tion
ra isi ngthe iss ue s d isc us se d h e re . H ow e ve r, be c a us e we c on c lud e that Will iams i s no t ent itled to
re lie f u nd e r a ny sta nd ard of re vie w, we ne e d n ot d e c ide wh e the r p la in- e rr or re vie w a pp lie s. B. W aiv e r of R e vo c at ion He ar ing Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 provides the pr ocedur es that a c ourt must follow when it is r evoking or modify ing a defe ndant’s term of supervised rele ase. This rule states that at an indi v i d u al’s first appear ance related to a super vised-re lease violation, the judge must tell t he individual what the alleg ed violation is, that the individual has a rig ht to counsel, and that the ind ivi du a l ha s a ri g ht to a pr e lim ina ry he ari ng if he or sh e is be ing he ld i n c us tod y . F e d. R. C ri m. P. 32.1(a) (3). Rule 32.1 further provides that unless the i ndividual chooses to waive a re vocation he ari ng , s uc h a h earingmus t be he ld w ith in a re a so na ble tim e . F e d. R. C ri m. P . 3 2. 1( b) (2 ). Th is he ari ngmus t in c lud e wr itt e n n oti c e of the vio la tio n; dis c los ur e of e vid e nc e a g a ins t the ind ivi du a l; the op po rt

un ity to a pp e ar, pr e se nt e vid e nc e , a nd qu e sti on wi tne sse s; not ic e of the ri g ht t o c ouns e l,
and an o pp or

tun ity to m a ke a

state me nt a

nd pr e se nt mit ig a tin g e vid e nc e . F e d. R. C ri m. P
. 32.1(b)( 2)(A) -(E)
.5

Wil liams arg ues that the district cour t violated his due-proc ess rig hts by failing to conduct
a s u ff i ci en t i n qu i ry t o d et er m i n e wh et h er h i s wa i v er o f h i s ri gh tt o a r ev o ca t i o nh ea ri n g wa s k n o wi n g, intelligent, a

nd voluntary . At Wil liams’s initi al hea ring , the district court c onducted the f ollowing
c o l l o qu y: TH E CO UR T: Al l ri g ht. Mr
. Willi a ms, do y ou un de rs tand tha t if y ou a dmi t to t

he se vio la tio ns y ou

wi ll e ff e c tiv e ly be ple a din g g uil ty

to t he m? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Y e s. THE COURT: All rig ht. And that means that the Court will there fore have a fac tual basis to find y ou in violation of y our terms of supe rvised re lease ? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Y e s. THE COURT: And that ultimately the Court will have to dec i d e what the a pp ro pr ia te sanc tio n wou ld be , ba se d on thos e vio la tio ns . Do you un de rs tand

that? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Y e s. THE COURT: All rig ht. Do y ou understand that normally y ou would have a rig ht to a hea ring in connec tion with these char g ed violati o n s , at which the g overnme nt wo uld have to p re se nt p ro of

of the vio la tio ns ? THE DEF ENDAN T: Iunderstand now
. THE COURT: All rig ht. And so do y ou understa n d t h at by admitting to the vio la tio ns y ou

are wa ivi ngy our r ig ht t o a he ari ngon

the m? (The de fenda

nt spoke with counsel off the re cord.) TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Y e s. THE COURT: And is that what y ou want to do? THE DEF ENDAN T: Yea h. TH E CO UR T: Al l r ig ht. So you a dmi t to the se fo r se pa ra te vio la tio ns : F a ilure to participate in the community corr ections ce nter, u s e of illeg al substance s, criminal6

association and f

ailure to maintain stable housing , and fa ilure to participate in drug and alc ohol after car e. TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Y e s. Hr’gTr. Aug . 21, 2008, at 3-4. Wil liams was repre sented by counsel, and his counsel was pr esent d u r i n g t h i s h e ar i n g an d

c o l l o qu y. A l t h o u g h i t

i s n o tc o n t r o l l i n g , a r e c e n t unp u b l i s h e d o r d e r o f t h i s c o u rts t a t e d t h a t“ [ i ] d e a l l y,
a cour t [ at a supe rv i sed-r elea se violation hear ing] will advise an a ccuse d of the rig hts waived a nd the conse quenc es o f t he wa iver, but re vocation proc eeding s are less formal than c riminal prosec utions and no formal wa iver c olloquy is require d.” United States v. Rhoad , 102 F. App’ x 918, 91 9 (6t h Cir. 20 04 ) ( un

pu bli sh e d o rd e r) ; see also U

nited States v. Dodson , 25 F.3d 385, 388 ( 6th Cir. 19 94 ) ( “ Al tho ug h r e vo c a tio n o f p ro batio n is no t par t of a c ri min a l pr os e c uti on , a

nd thu s th e fu ll panoply of due proce ss protections ac corde d a def endant in such a

proce eding do not apply to a
re vo c a tio n p ro c e e din g , th e los s o f f re e do m e mbo die d in

the re vo c a tio n o f prob a tio n c on sti tut e s a deprivation of a defenda

nt’s liberty .”). The Rhoad court fur ther e x plained that we should consider t h e t o t al i t y

o f t h e c i rc u m s t an ce s wh en d ec i d i n g wh et h er a r ev o ca t i o n -h ea ri n g wa i v er wa s k n o wi n g, intelligent, a nd voluntary
. Id. Othe r c ir c uit s h a ve take n a sim ila r a pp ro a c h a nd have re fu se d to require formal pr ocedur es like those that Rule 11 re quires i n connection with guilty pleas. See United States v. Hodge

s , 4 60 F .3 d 6 46 , 6 51 -5 2 ( 5th Cir . 2 00 6) ; United States v. Gibbs , 228 F. App’ x 639, 639 (9th Cir. 2006) (unpublis hed memorandum) (holdi ng that rec ord did not show voluntary
or int e lli g e nt w a ive r) ; Un ite d Sta te s v . F arre ll , 393 F .3 d 498 , 500 (4 th Cir . 2 00 5) ; United States v. Correa-Torres , 3 26 F .3 d 1 8, 23 (1 st C ir . 2 00 3) ; United States v. LeBlanc , 1 75 F .3 d 5 11 , 5 15 -1 7 ( 7th Cir . 1 99 9) ; United States v. Pe lensky , 129 F.3d 63, 67- 68 (2d Cir. 1997).7

Considering the total i t y

of the c ircumstance s, we c onclude that Williams’s waiver wa s knowing , intelligent, a

nd voluntary . The district cour t failed to enume rate t h e ex act rights and proce dures to which Williams would be entitled at a revoc ation hear ing. I n the intere st of ensuring t h a t w a i v e r s o f t h e i mp o rt an t r i g h t s p r o t e c t e d b y R u l e 3 2
. 1 ar e kn o w i n g , i n t e l l i g e n t , an d v o l u n t a r y,
we e nc oura g e dis tr ic t c ourt s to inf or m d efen da

nts re g ard ingthe ri g hts c on ta ine d in Rul e 32.1(b)( 2)(A) -(E) . The fac t t h at t h e district cour t failed fully

to do so here, how ever , does not establish that Wil liams’s plea lac ked t h e fe atures of a knowing , intelligent, a nd voluntary

waiver
. I nstead, the totality

of circ umstances he re indicates the contra ry . Wil liams was re prese nted by counsel throug hout the revoc ation proce eding s, and the district cour t clear ly informed him that he had a r ight to a he aringon the alleg ed violations. Additionally , afte r waiving his rig ht to a hea ring orally , Wil liams signed a waiver in w hich he a g ree d to submit to location monitoring. Rec ord on Appea l (“ROA” ) at 32-33 (W aiver of Hr’g , Sept. 19, 2008). Wil liams signe d a si milar waive r a f ew months earlier

when he ag ree d to waive a revocation hearing and to live at a Com munity Correc tions Center f or 60 day s. ROA at 21 (Waiver of Hr’g , J une 5, 2008). After the Aug ust hearingat which the quoted colloquy took pla ce, the district court orde red Wil liams to submi t to location monitoring a s part of his super vised rele ase. When Willi ams ref used location monitoring and came befor e the court ag ain, the Wil liams a dmitted that he had violated the
c o n d i t i o n s o f

h i s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e an d

w a i v e d h i s r i g h tt o a

h e ar i n g o n t h i s n e w v i o l a t i o n . In
a c c e pti ng thi s wa ive r, the dis tr ic t c ourt c on du c te d a

n in qu ir y sim ila r t o th e on e that it

did in Augus t. Hr ’g Tr . Oc t. 8, 200 8, a t 8-9
. Ho we ve r, Willi a ms doe s not me nti on or c omp la in of thi s w a ive r i n his appellate br ief. Review ing the totality of the c ircumstances , we conclude that althoug h the d i s t ri ct co u rt fa i l edt o en u m er at e e v ery ri gh t t h at W i l l i am s wa s wa i v i n g, h i s wa i v er wa s kn o wi n g,8

intelligent, a

nd voluntary . I n rea ching this conclusion, we do not express an opinion about what
c i r c u m s t an c e s w o u l d

l e a d u s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t a

w a i v e r w a s n o tk n o w i n g , i n t e l l i g e n t , an d

v o l u n t a r y. I n this case, Williams was repre sented by counsel throug hout the entire r evocation pr ocee ding, the re is n o e vid e nc e that Willi a ms wa s un de r any un du e inf lue nc e or pr e ssu re , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt

c le a rl y
a dd re sse d Wil liams re g ard ing his wa ive r. Ac c or din g ly , we ho ld that the dis tr ic t court did no t e rr in the circ umstances of

this case in ac ceptingWil liams’s waiver of a f ull supervised-r elea se re vocation h ea ri n g. III . C ON CL USI ON We AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.