FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 15 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16319 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 99 -002 37 -C R -4 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S T E V E N A N D R E W C A U S E Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 15, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S t e ve n A ndr e w C aus e y appe a l s hi s 24 m onth s e nt e nc e f orvi ol a t i ng a cond i t i on of hi s t erm of supervi se d rel ea se –speci fi ca l l y, for usi ng a c on trol l ed2

s ubs t a nc e i n vi ol a t i on of ac ondi t i on of

hi s s upe rvi s i on. W e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrw he n i tove rrul e d hi s obj e c t i on t o the i ntr oduc t i on of te s tim o n y a s to th e s p e c if ic q u a n titie s o f

s te r o id s th a t h a d b e e n f o u n d in h is s pe c i m e n, a s the gove rnm e ntha d pr ovi de d C aus e y w i th ac opy of the pos i t i ve l abor a t ory r e por tpr i ort o hi s r e voc a t i on he a r i ng. M or e ove r , e ve n a s s um i ng the go vernm ent ’ s r eportshou l d h ave di sc l osed the spec i fi c quant i t i es of st er oi ds that h a d b e e n f

o u n d in h is s p e c im e n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in re vo ki ng C ause y’ s t erm of supervi se d rel ea se , because C ause y f ai l ed t o sho w that the court ’ s dec i si on t o d o so w as base d o n cl ea rl y e rr on eous fi nd i ng s of f ac tor an im p r o p e rap p lic a tio n o f la w . A c c o r d in g ly , w e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D I n 2 0 0 0 , C au s e y w a s c o n v ic te d o f a tte m p tin g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e m etham ph et am i ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 . C ause y’ s c ri m i nal c onduc tw a s s ubj e c tt o am i ni m um m a nda t ory s e nt e nc e of t e n y e a r s . H ow e ve r , the go vernm entfi l ed a m ot i on pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 5 K 1. 1 see ki ng a dow nw ar d departure bel ow t en ye ar s, w hi ch the courtgrant ed. U l t i m at el y, C ause y w as se nt ence d t o 7 8 m on ths i m pri sonm ent , fol l ow ed by fi ve ye ar s of s up ervi se d r e l e a s e . A c ondi t i on of C aus e y ’ s t e rm of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e w a s tha the not3

ille g a lly p o s s e s s ac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . C au s e y d id n o t ap p e a l e ith e rh is c o n v ic tio n o rh is s e n te n c e . C a us e y w a s r e l e a s e d f

r om pr i s on i n M a y 2005, a nd be ga n the pe r i od of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e on 27 M a y 2005. O n 2 O c t obe r2006, aw a rr a ntw a s i s s ue d f or C a u s e y o n th e b a s is th a t h e v io la te d th e a f o r e m e n tio n e d c o n d itio n o f s u p e rv is io n . T he w a rr a nta l l e ge d the f ol l ow i ng. M a nda t o r y C o ndi t i o n - The de f e nda nt s ha l lr e f

r a i n f r o m a ny u n l aw fu lu se of a con tr ol l ed su b st an ce . O n A u g u s t 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , a u r i n e s p e c i me n wa s c o l l e c t e d f r o m C au s e y a n d s u b mi tt e d t o ST L L abor a t or i e s f

ort e s t i ng. T he r e s ul t s , w hi c h w e r e r e c e i ve d on S e pt e m be r25, 2006, i ndi c a t e d the s pe c i m e n w a s pos i t i ve f orthe a nabol i c s t e r oi d N a ndr ol one a nd the drug’ s a s s oc i a t e d m e t abol i t e s 19- N o r a n d r o s te r o n e , 1 9 - N o r e tio c h o la n o lo n e , a n d 1 9 - N o r e p ia n d r o s te r o n e . N an d ro l o n e i s a S ch ed u l e III co n tro l l ed su b st an ce an d req u i res a p r e s c r ip tio n in th e U n ite d S ta te s . C au s e y d e n ie d e v e ru s in g a n ab o lic s t e r oi ds a nd r e por t e d tha the doe s notha ve apr e s c r i pt i on f ora ny a n ab o lic s te r o id s . R 1- 118. A s ar e s ul t , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rr e c om m e nde d tha tC aus e y ’ s t e rm of s upe rvi s i on be r e voke d. C aus e y w a s a rr e s t e d a nd or de r e d t o de t e nt i on pe ndi ng a r e v o c a tio n h e a r in g . O n 6 N ov em ber 200 6, the go vernm entfi l ed an em er gency m ot i on for a c ont i nua nc e a nd s pe c i a l s e tt i ng. I n i t s m ot i on, the gove rnm e nts t a t e d tha tthe or i gi na l pr oba t i on r e voc a t i on pr oc e e di ng ha d be e n s e tf or23 O c t obe r2006, but because C ause y’ s c ou nsel obj ec t ed t o the adm i ss i bi l i ty of the S ci ent i fi c L aborat ory4

T e s tin g R e p o r t o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e s p e c im e n h a d a c tu a lly b e e n te s te d b y A e g is L aborat ory–w orki ng un der c on tra ctw i th S T L –C ause y’ s c as e had been conti nu ed un t i l 7 N ov em ber. S ub se qu ent l y, the go vernm enthad o bt ai ned the ori gi nal l ab r e por tf r om A e gi s , w hi c h s how e d the r e s ul t s of the s pe c i m e n t o be pos i t i ve , a nd ha d pr ovi de d aha r d c opy of the r e por tt o C aus e y ’ s c ouns e l , i n hope s of obt a i ni ng a s t i pul a t i on. T he gove rnm e ntha d f ur the re xpl a i ne d tha tw i thoutas t i pul a t i on f r om C a u s e y , th e te s tin g c h e m is t f r o m A e g is w o u ld h a v e to b e b r o u g h t to S a v a n n a h to t e s t i f y . C aus e y ’ s c ouns e l r e f us e d t o s t i pul a t e t o the c ont e nt s of the r e por t , a nd ad v i sed th atl i v e t est i m o n y fro m th e ch em i stw o u l d b e req u i red . F o r th ese reaso n s, the go vernm entsoug hta c on t i nu ance of the 7 N ov em ber hear i ng and a speci al s e ttin g o f th e n e w h e a r in g d a te , w ith n o tic e , to a f f o r d it ar e a s o n ab le o p p o r tu n ity to br i ng the c he m i s tf

r om T e nne s s e e t o S a va nna h t o t e s t i f y a s t o the c ont e nt s of

the lab r e p o r t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n f o rac o n tin u a n c e . P r i ort o the r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, the gove rnm e nts ubm i tt e d ac opy of the spec i m en re po rt– a copy of w hi ch w as prov i ded t o C ause y– re veal i ng thatC ause y ha d t e s t e d pos i t i ve f

orN a ndr ol one a nd the drug’ s a s s oc i a t e d m e t abol i t e s 19- N orandrost er on e, 19 -N oret i ocho l anol on e, and 1 9-N orepi androst er on e. T he re po rt further r evea l ed thatthe sc re en cutoff f or N androl on e w as 10 ng /m L , and the three a s s oc i a t e d m e t abol i t e s w e r e c onf i rm e d a tc ut of

f 10ng/m L e a c h. N e ve r the l e s s , the5

“ qu ant i ty” se ct i on of the re po rtw as bl ank. T he re po rtw as ce rt i fi ed by D r. T im o th y R o b e r t. A tthe re vo ca t i on hear i ng on 20 N ov em ber 200 6, D avi d P aga, the U ni t ed S t at es P ro b at i o n O ffi cer w h o w as resp o n si b l e fo r th e su p erv i si o n o f C au sey, fi rst te s tif ie d th a t o n 2 A u g u s t 2 0 0 6 , h e h a d r e c e iv e d in f o rm a tio n f

r o m a n in d iv id u a l in C of f e e C ounty i ndi c a t i ng tha tC a us e y w a s us i ng s t e r oi ds . P a gat e s t i f i e d tha the ha d not i c e d “ ar e m a rkabl e di f f e r e nc e i n M r . C aus e y ’ s s i z e f r om the t i m e he w a s on b o n d u n til th e tim e h e w a s . . . a rr e s te d o n th e s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e w a rr a n t.” R 2 a t 6 . P a gat e s t i f

i e d tha ton 25 A ugus t2006, C aus e y ha d t e s t e d pos i t i ve f orthe unl a w f

ul u se o f st ero i d s. P ag a st at ed th at , w h en p resen t ed w i th th e p o si t i v e t estresu l t s, C ause y f i rs tsa i d thathe di d n ott ake a ny st er oi ds, and l at ersa i d thathe had b ee n pres cr i bed t es t ost er on e f or i m po t ency . P aga a l so t es t i fi ed thatC ause y never pres ent ed a pres cr i pt i on for t es t ost er on e. P aga t es t i fi ed thatC ause y’ s s peci m en had b ee n sub m i tt ed t o S T L for the usual control l ed subst ance s a nd w as then s u b m itte d to as e p a r a te lab o r a to ry c a lle d A e g is L ab o r a to r ie s f o rs te r o id te s tin g . P a g ate s tif

ie d th a t N a n d r o lo n e is p r im a r ily u s e d f o rb o d y b u ild in g . D r. T i m othy R ob ert , l aborat ory di re ct or atA egi s S ci ence s, then t es t i fi ed as a n e xpe r ti n the f

i l e d of f or e ns i c t oxi c ol ogy . H e t e s t i f i e d tha t“ the t e s t i ng pe r f orm e d on the s pe c i m e n i ndi c a t e d the pr e s e nc e of thr e e di s t i nc tm e t abol i t e s of6

N androl on e, w hi ch ar e c om m on l y e ncou nt er ed i n si tuat i on s w here a per son h as e i the rus e d N a ndr ol one oraN a ndr ol one pr e c ur s or . ” I d. a t16. T he gove rnm e nt further a sked, “ w ou l d you t el l us som ethi ng abou tthe concentra t i on s y ou det ec t ed here i n thi s s am pl e? W er e they hi gh , l ow , coul d you m ake adet erm i nat i on ? ” I d. at 1 7 . D r . R o b e r t s ta te d : W e l l , I ne e d t o pr e f

a c e the s e c om m e nt s w i th af a c ttha tw e do not r e por tqua nt i t a t i ve r e s ul t s on ourt e s tr e s ul t s , be c aus e the s e m e thods have no tbeen val i dat ed for quant i t at i ve pu rposes . A nd , of course , ur i na ry t e s t i ng doe s n’ tr e a l l y be ne f i ts i gni f i c a nt l y f r om pr ovi di ng q u a n tita tiv e r e s u lts in m o s t c a s e s . B u t I th in kin th is p a r tic u la rc a s e , it i s f ai r t o saythatbecause of the fa ctthatw e had t o g o b ac k and re a n a ly z e th e s a m p le w ith ar a th e rla r g e d ilu tio n f a c to rth a t it is q u ite cl ear th atth ere w ere v ery l arg e co n cen trat i o n s o f al l th ree o f th ese m e tab o lite s p r e s e n t in th e u r in e s p e c im e n . Id. at17 -18. C ause y di d n otent eran obj ec t i on atthi s t i m e. T he go vernm entthen s o u g h tD r . Ro b e r t ’ s e x p e r to p i n i o n b y a s k i n g h i m: [ t]h e c o n c e n tr a tio n y o u o b s e rv e d a n d th e d ilu tio n f a c to ry o u h a d to use . . . w ou l d you char ac t er i ze tho se concentra t i on l evel s a s c ons i s t e ntori nc ons i s t e ntw i th a ny a c c i de nt a l c ont a m i na t i on i nge s t i on, an d w h y? I d . a t 1 8 . C ause y’ s c ou nsel obj ec t ed, ar gu i ng thatthe di sc l osed copy of the re po rthad a c at egory f

or qu ant i ty on i t , bu tthati tw as bl ank. T hu s, C ause y’ s c ou nsel o b je c te d to D r . R o b e r t te s tif y in g to a n y th in g b e y o n d th a t w h ic h w a s c o n ta in e d in th e rep o rt . C au sey’ s co u n sel d i d n o ti d en t i fy th i s as a co n st i tu t i o n al o r d u e p ro cess7

obj e c t i on a tthi s poi nti n the he a r i ng, nordi d i tr e f e rt o F e d. R . C r i m . P . 32. 1. T he di s tr i c tc our tove rrul e d the obj e c t i on, a nd di r e c t e d D r . R obe r tt o a ns w e rthe que s t i on. D r . R obe r tr e s ponde d tha tthe obs e rve d c onc e ntr a t i ons w e r e i nc ons i s t e nt w i th tho se se en i n cas es of ac ci dent al cont am i nat i on , or cont am i nat i on of a s u p p le m e n t p r o d u c t. O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n b y C au s e y , D r . R o b e r t a d m itte d th a t it w a s p o s s ib le to t e s tpos i t i ve f

orthe thr e e m e t abol i t e s of N a ndr ol one w i thoutha vi ng i nj e c t e d the pare ntdrug , D ec adron. D r. R ob ertal so t es t i fi ed thatthe i ng es t i on of the precurs ors coul d l ea d t o a po si t i ve t es tre sul t . D r. R ob ertal so st at ed thatvi t am i n sub st ance s h a v e te s te d p o s itiv e f

o rth e p r e c u r s o r s o f

N a d r o lo n e . D r . R o b e r t te s tif ie d th a t in other i nst ance s he had foun d tra ce s of a nabo l i c s t er oi d p re curs ors a s non -l abel ed i n g red i en t s i n sl eep -ai d s, v i t am i n s, an d d i et ary su p p l em en t s. D r. R o b ertal so i ndi c a t e d tha tthe pr e c ur s or s a r e noti l l e ga l thr oughoutthe w or l d, a nd tha tm a ny di et ary s up pl em ent s a re m anufactured ou t si de the U ni t ed S t at es i n fac i l i t i es w here cr oss- cont am i nat i on m ayoccur. D r. R ob ertal so t es t i fi ed thatthere ar e pub l i shed a c c ount s i ndi c a t i ng tha tN a ndr ol one c oul d be pr oduc e d i n the hum a n body , a nd s pe c ul a t i ng tha tthe c ons um pt i on of pork m a y c aus e a n i nc r e a s e d pr e s e nc e of m e tab o lite o f

N a n d r o lo n e in th e b o d y .8

D r . R obe r te xpl a i ne d on c r os s - e xa m i na t i on tha tthe qua nt i ty c a t e gory i n the s pe c i m e n r e por tw a s bl a nk be c aus e hi s l abor a t ory di d notputqua nt i t i e s f or pos i t i ve t e s tr e s ul t s of

N a ndr ol one . D r . R obe r tt e s t i f i e d tha tthe c ut of

f a m ount re fe rr ed t o a thres ho l d am ou ntand thatany a m ou ntov er10 nano gram s per m i l l i l i t er fo r th e th ree m et ab o l i t es o f N an d ro l o n e w o u l d read as a p o si t i v e t est re sul t . A tthatpo i nti n the cr oss- exam i nat i on , D r. R ob ertst at ed thathe di d i n fac t have w i th h i m atthe heari ng spec i fi c num er i ca l dat a w i th res pectt o the three m e tab o lite s f

o u n d in th e s p e c im e n . U pon he a r i ng thi s t e s t i m ony , C aus e y ’ s c ouns e l m ove d t o e xc l ude a ny t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the qua nt i t a t i ve r e s ul t s of the t e s t s , on the ba s i s tha tthe in fo rm atio n h ad n o t b ee n p re v io u sly d isclo se d to C au se y. H o w ev er , C au se y’s coun se l st i l l di d n otre fe r t o thi s a s adu e proces s a rgum entor an obj ec t i on base d o n R u le 3 2 .1 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d c o m p e lle d it to bri ng D r. R ob ertt o the heari ng t o t es t i fy , and the fa ctthatD r. R ob ertkn ew m ore th a n w h a t w a s in th e r e p o r t w a s s im p ly ab e n e f it o f h a v in g aliv e e x p e r t w itn e s s . U l t i m a t e l y , the di s tr i c tc our tove rrul e d C aus e y ’ s m ot i on t o e xc l ude the qua nt i t a t i ve d at a an d i t s o b

j ect i o n t o D r. R o b ert ’ s t est i m o n y. O n r e d ir e c t b y th e g o v e rn m e n t, D r . R o b e r t f ir s t te s tif ie d th e W o r ld A n tiDo p i n g Ag e n c y ( WADA ) h a s s e tath r e s h o l d l e v e l o f two n a n o g r a m s t o s h o w a9

po si t i ve t es tre sul tfor N androl on e i n m al es . D r. R ob ertst at ed thathi s l aborat ory c o n s id e r s te n n a n o g r a m s ap o s itiv e te s t r e s u lt f o rN a n d r o lo n e , th u s , th e th r e s h o ld l evel atthe l aborat ory i s f i ve t i m es thatof W A D A . T he go vernm entthen asked D r . R o b e r t to d e s c r ib e th e q u a n tita tiv e in f o rm a tio n c o lle c te d in C au s e y ’s s p e c im e n . C a us e y ’ s c ouns e l a ga i n obj e c t e d, “ on the ba s i s of R ul e 16, ” tha tthe i nf

orm a t i on had n otbeen previ ou sl y provi ded t o them . R 2-34 . T he go vernm entre spon ded that C a us e y ’ s c ouns e l ha d ope ne d the doort o tha te vi de nc e , by a s ki ng aboutthe s p e c if ic d a tao n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t o v e rru le d th e o b je c tio n . D r. R ob ertthen t es t i fi ed thatexam i nat i on of the sa m pl e provi ded b y C ause y re veal ed approx i m at el y 4, 40 0 n anog ra m s perm i l l i l i t erof 19 -N orandrost enedi on e, appr oxi m a t e l y 727 na nogr a m s pe rm i l l i l i t e rof 19- N or e t i oc hol a nol one , a nd approx i m at el y 328 nano gram s perm i l l i l i t erof 19 -N orepi androst er on e. D r. R ob ert as se rt ed thatthese re sul t s w ou l d n otbe consi st entw i th i nadv ert enti nci dent al expo sure . D r. R ob ertexpl ai ned thatthese w er e nottra ce concentra t i on s, bu tw er e s u b s ta n tia lly e le v a te d c o n c e n tr a tio n s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e s te d . C a us e y pr e s e nt e d one w i tne s s , M a rk B a tt e n, C aus e y ’ s br othe r - i n- l a w , w ho t es t i fi ed thatC ause y l i ved w i th h i m for aperi od i n 2 00 5, and thatthey l i ft ed w e i ght s t oge the rne a r l y e ve ry da y f ora n hourt o tw o hour s . B a tt e n t e s t i f i e d tha the10

and C ause y t oo k m ore than 1 5 d i ff er enttypes of vi t am i ns and sup pl em ent s, w hi ch th e y p u r c h a s e d a t G N C o f f lin e o ro n lin e , to try to s ta y f it a n d m a in ta in h e a lth . In hi s c l osi ng ar gu m entatthe heari ng , C ause y’ s c ou nsel st at ed thatC ause y di d notdi s put e the pr e s e nc e of N a ndr ol one i n hi s s pe c i m e n, onl y w he the rthe p r e s e n c e o f

th e c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e w a s o f a n in te n tio n a l o ra c c id e n ta l n a tu r e , o rif th e s a m p le its e lf

h a d b e e n c o n ta m in a te d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th a t, a c c o r d in g to U .S .S .G . § 7 B 1 .4 , ap p lic a tio n n o te 4, because C ause y’ s ori gi nal se nt ence had b ee n the re sul tof a dow nw ar d d eparture a n upw a r d de pa r tur e w a s a r guabl y w a rr a nt e d f orhi s s e nt e nc e f

orr e voc a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tl e ve l of

i nge s t i on of

N a ndr ol one i n thi s c a s e w a s “ w i l dl y i n e xc e s s ” of the m i ni m um r e qui r e d t o a c c ountf ora ny a c c i de nt a l i nge s t i on ori nc i de nt a l c ont a m i na t i on. I d. a t52. T hus , the c our tf ound tha tC a us e y vi ol a t e d the t e rm s a nd c ondi t i ons of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e by i nge s t i ng a S c h e d u le I I I c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . T h e c o u r t o f f e r e d C au s e y a n o p p o r tu n ity to spea k i n m i t i gat i on , bu the re fuse d t o m ake ast at em ent . T he courtagai n n ot ed that C ause y had re ce i ved a subst ant i al do w nw ar d d eparture on h i s ori gi nal se nt ence , an d th en sen t en ced h i m t o an ad d i t i o n al 2 4 m o n th s i m p ri so n m en t , fo l l o w ed b y a n e w th r e e y e a rte rm o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . C au s e y tim e ly ap p e a le d .11 I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , C aus e y a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by a d m ittin g a n d r e ly in g u p o n te s tim o n ia l e v id e n c e th a t h a d n o t b e e n p r o v id e d to h im p r io rto th e h e a r in g in v io la tio n o f F e d . R . C r im . P . 3 2 .1 , a n d d u e p r o c e s s . S peci fi ca l l y, C ause y a rgues thatthe go vernm entw as re qu i re d t o p rovi de no t i ce of –a nd pr oduc e a l l –e vi de nc e a ga i ns thi m , i nc l udi ng the a c tua l qua nt i t i e s of N androl on e m et abol i t es foun d i n h i s s peci m en. C ause y a l so cont ends thatthere w as am pl e e vi dence i n the re cord t o sup po rta c on cl usi on thathe m ayhave t es t ed pos i t i ve f

orm e t abol i t e s thr ough i na dve r t e ntori nc i de nt a l e xpos ur e or c ons um pt i on. C aus e y r e que s t s tha tthe r e voc a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e be r e ve r s e d a nd r e m a nde d, a nd the e vi de nc e r e l a t i ng t o the s pe c i f i c qua nt i t i e s of N a ndr ol one be e xc l ude d. C aus e y a s s e r t s tha tthe appl i c abl e s t a nda r d of r e vi e w f or a l l of the s e i s s ue s i s abus e of di s c r e t i on. W hen a defendantobj ec t s t o a di stri ctcourt ’ s r evocat i on of supervi se d re l ea se , thatw i l l be re vi ew ed un der a n abu se of di sc re t i on st andard. U ni t ed S t at es v . C o p e la n d , 2 0 F .3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A c o u r t ab u s e s its di sc re t i on w hen i t s dec i si on “ re st s upo n a cl ea rl y e rr on eous fi nd i ng of fa ct , an erra ntconcl usi on of l aw , or an i m prop erappl i ca t i on of l aw t o fac t . ” U ni t ed S t at es12

v. B a ke r , 432 F . 3d 1189, 1202 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S .C t. 1 8 0 9 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . B y c on tra st , w hen a defendantdo es no tra i se an obj ec t i on before the di stri ct c our ti ni t i a l l y , hi s c l a i m w i l l onl y be r e vi e w e d f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l ano, 50 7 U . S . 72 5, 73 1, 11 3 S . C t . 17 70 , 17 76 (199 3). T o est abl i sh pl ai n err or, the defendantm ustprov e: (1) e rr or; (2) thati s pl ai n; and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al r ig h ts . I d . a t 7 3 2 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 1 7 7 6 ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . W e w ill c o rr e c t th e e rr o ro n ly if

it “s e r io u s ly a f

f e c ts th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity o rp u b lic r e put a t i on of

j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. a t732, 113 S . C t . a t1776 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . B e c aus e C aus e y obj e c t e d t o D r . R obe r t ’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the qua nt i ty of

s t e r oi ds pr e s e nti n hi s s a m pl e a tthe r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, he p r e s e rv e d h is o b

je c tio n to th e a lle g e d f

a ilu r e to tim e ly d is c lo s e th e s p e c if ic q u a n tity of st er oi ds pres enti n h i s s peci m en, and t o the t es t i m on y i t se l f. W hi l e C ause y m ay notha ve pr e s e rve d adue pr oc e s s c ha l l e nge ora n obj e c t i on ba s e d s pe c i f i c a l l y on R ul e 32. 1, i ti s notnece ss ary f or us t o d ec i de thatqu es t i on because, as di sc usse d b e lo w , u n d e re ith e ra n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n o rp la in e rr o rs ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w , h is c la im d o e s n o t s u c c e e d . “D e f e n d a n ts in v o lv e d in r e v o c a tio n p r o c e e d in g s a r e e n title d to c e r ta in m i ni m a l due pr oc e s s r e qui r e m e nt s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r a z i e r , 26 F . 3d 110, 11413

( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi tt e d ) . I n th e p a r o l e r e v o c a t i o n c o n t e x t , th e Su p r e me C our tha s he l d tha tdue pr oc e s s r e qui r e s , a m ong othe rthi ngs , di s c l os ur e of the e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e p e r s o n . M o rr is s e y v . B r e w e r , 4 0 8 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 7 - 8 9 , 9 2 S . C t. 2593, 2604 ( 1972) . F ol l ow i ng M orr i s s e y , thi s rul e w a s c odi f i e d i n F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 32. 1( b) , pr ovi di ng i n r e l e va ntpa r t , tha tthe de f e nda nti n a r e v o c a tio n h e a r in g is e n title d to “d is c lo s u r e o f th e e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e p e r s o n .” F ed . R . C ri m . P . 3 2 . 1 (b )(2 )(B ). W e h av e ex t en d ed th e “ p ro t ect i o n s g ran t ed th o se fa ci ng re vo ca t i on of parol e [ t o cov er ] tho se fa ci ng the re vo ca t i on of supervi se d re l ea se . ” C op el and, 20 F . 3d at41 4 (ci t at i on om i tt ed). I n th i s c a s e , i ti s c l e a rth a tth e g o v e rn me n tc o mp l i e d w i th Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 3 2 .1 a n d d u e p r o c e s s to th e e x te n t th a t it p r o v id e d C au s e y ac o p y o f th e A e g is L aborat ory r eportpri or t o the re vo ca t i on hear i ng . T hi s r eportconfi rm ed that C ause y’ s s peci m en t es t ed po si t i ve for N androl on e, ata thres ho l d l evel of t en n g /m L . I ti s true , a s C aus e y poi nt s out , tha tthe gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o di s c l os e , pr i or t o the r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, the e vi de nc e of the s pe c i f

i c qua nt i t i e s of

N a ndr ol one a nd i t s m et abol i t es foun d i n C ause y’ s s peci m en– q uant i t i es w hi ch had n otbeen r e p o r te d o n th e lab o r a to ry r e p o r t. N e v e r th e le s s , w e a f f irm , b e c au s e C au s e y f

a ils to14

d em o n strat e th atth e d eci si o n t o rev o k e h i s t erm o f su p erv i sed rel ease w as an ab u se of di s c r e t i on orpl a i n e rr or . S e e B a ke r , 432 F . 3d a t1202. F i rs t , the go vernm entsoug htre vo ca t i on of C ause y’ s t erm of supervi se d re l ea se on the grou nd s thathe engaged i n the un l aw ful use of acontrol l ed s u b s ta n c e . I t d id n o t r e ly o n a n y s p e c if ic te s t q u a n tity f

o rs e e k in g th e r e v o c a tio n . S e c ond, the tr a ns c r i ptf

r om the r e voc a t i on he a r i ng s how s tha tdur i ng the g o v e rn m e n t’s d ir e c t e x a m in a tio n o f D r . R o b e r t, th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t a s kh im to t e s t i f y t o the e xa c tl e ve l s of

s t e r oi ds di s c ove r e d i n the s pe c i m e n. T he tr a ns c r i pt de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe gove rnm e nta s ke d hi m t o r e nde ra n e xpe r topi ni on r e ga r di ng the t e s tr e s ul t s ba s e d on the da t ac ont a i ne d i n the r e por t , a s ki ng, “ w oul d y ou t e l l us som ethi ng abou tthe concentra t i on s y ou det ec t ed here i n thi s s am pl e. W er e they hi gh , l ow , coul d you m ake adet erm i nat i on ? ” S ee R 2 at17 . E ven aft erC ause y obj ec t ed and the courtov errul ed hi s obj ec t i on , D r. R ob ertt es t i fi ed as t o h i s e xp ert concl usi on that , base d o n the t en nano gram s perm i l l i l i t erthres ho l d, the ob se rved c o n c e n tr a tio n s w e r e in c o n s is te n t w ith c o n ta m in a tio n o f as u p p le m e n t p r o d u c t. Itw as no tun t i l C ause y’ s c ross -e xam i nat i on of D r. R ob ertthatD r. R ob ert w a s a s k e d w h e th e rh e h a d w ith h im c o n f irm a tio n d a taw ith r e s p e c t to th e s p e c if ic l evel s of the three m et abol i t es foun d i n C ause y’ s s peci m en. C ause y’ s c ou nsel as ked thi s quest i on i m m edi at el y a ft erD r. R ob ertt es t i fi ed thathi s usual l aborat ory15

p ract i ce w as not

to p u t th e s p e c if

ic q u a n titie s in th e r e p o r t, a n d th a t th e r e p o r t o n ly re veal ed w hether the spec i m en t es t ed abov e the cut off a m ou nt . C ause y then m ov ed t o p re ventD r. R ob ertfr om t es t i fy i ng abou tthi s dat a, and the di stri ctcourt deni ed the m ot i on . A s are sul t , on re di re ct , the go vernm entas ked, and D r. R ob ert te s tif ie d , a s to th e e x a c t le v e ls o f th e m e tab o lite s o b s e rv e din C au s e y ’s s p e c im e n . E v en assu m i n g th e g o v ern m en tco m m i tt ed so m e erro r i n fai l i n g t o d i scl o se the s pe c i f

i c qua nt i ty of

s t e r oi d f ound i n C aus e y ’ s s pe c i m e n, w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on orpl a i nl y e rri n r e voki ng hi s t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . S e e B a ke r , 432 F . 3d a t1202. I ti s undi s put e d tha tthe l aborat ory r eportdem on stra t ed thatC ause y’ s s peci m en t es t ed po si t i ve for a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , w h ic h h e w a s p r o h ib ite d f r o m in g e s tin g ( in a n y a m o u n t) a c c or di ng t o hi s c ondi t i ons of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . T he m i ni m um “ pa s s i ng” thr e s hol d l e ve l s r e por t e d on the l abor a t ory r e por tw e r e f i ve t i m e s gr e a t e rtha n the l evel s prohi bi t ed by the W orl d A nt i -D op i ng A gency. F urtherm ore, P aga t es t i fi ed thathe no t i ce d a “ re m arkabl e di ff er ence ” i n C ause y’ s s i ze , and thathe had b ee n to ld b y a n in f

o rm a n t th a t C au s e y w a s u s in g s te r o id s . S e e R 2 a t 6 . T h e s e f a c ts dem on stra t e by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence thatC ause y i ng es t ed a prohi bi t ed c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , in c le a rv io la tio n o f th e c o n d itio n s o f

h is s u p e rv is io n .16 I I I . CONCL US I ON B a s e d upon the r e c or d i n thi s c a s e a nd ourdi s c us s i on above , w e c a nnot concl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM .