FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 18, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 12 28 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 4- cr-0 00 85 -SCB -TBM- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOSHUA BLAINE DUNCAN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 18 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Jo sh uaBla in e Dun can ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s re vo cat io n o f hi s

supe rv is edrel eas e an d i m po si ti on of a24 -m on thsen te nc e, pu rs uantto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ). Afterrev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND FACTS A. Con vi cti on an d Sent ence Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y

in 20 04 , Dun can was c on vi ct edof c on sp ira cy to di sp os e o f a fi rearm

to a pe rs on who was a n u nl awfu l u se r of , or a dd ic te d t o, an y co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 71 . Dun can ’s un di sp ut edpre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ) no te d, am on g ot he r th in gs , th at : (1 ) Dun can ha d a n e xt en si ve hi st ory of s ub st an ce ab us e an d cri m es in vo lv in g, i nt er al ia , po ss es si on of c oc ai ne an d m ari juan a, ag gr av at ed ba tt ery an d n um ero us burg la rie s an d the fts ; (2 ) Dun can be li ev edhi s cr im in al hi st ory st emm edfro m

hi s dru g abu se ; (3 ) in 20 02 Dun can ’s st ep fathe r co m m it te d su ic id e an d Du nc anwas a t h is st ep fathe r’s si de un ti l h e d ie d; (4) si nc e th e su ic id e, Dun can ha d m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s an d was ab us in g p res cri pt io n a ndil le ga l drug s; an d (5 ) whi le in fed eral cu st od y , Dun can was d ia gn os edwith p os ttraum at ic st res s d is or de r (“ PTSD”) an d p an ic di so rd er an d was tak in g a nt i-a nx ie ty m ed ic at io n.

2The di stric t co urt i m po se d a60 -m on th sen te nc e, fo ll owe d b y th ree years’ supe rv is edrel eas e. The d is tri ctco urt re qu ire d Du nc anto parti ci pa te ina dr ug tre atm en t p ro gr am

as asp eci al co nd it io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e. B. Peti tio n to Mod ify Super vi se d Rel ea se On Oct ob er 2 4, 2 00 7, Du nc anbe ga n h is supe rv is edrel eas e te rm . On Decem be r 10 , 20 08 , th e Pro ba ti on Offic e fi le d ape ti ti on to m od ify the co nd it io ns of Dun can ’s supe rv is edrel eas e. Acco rd in g t o t he pe ti ti on , inlat e Oct ob er an d earl y Nov em be r 20 08 , Dun can rep orte d t o asubs ta nc e ab us e co un se lo r th athe was he ari ng vo ic es . The Pro ba ti on Offic e rec omm en de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt m od ify Dun can ’s con di ti on s o f supe rv is edrel eas e to in cl ud e m en ta l h eal th co un se li ng . The di st ric t co urt g ran te d the pe ti ti on . C. Firs t Peti tio n to Revo ke Supe rv is ed Rel ea se On M arch 3, 2 00 9, the Pro ba ti on Offic e fi le d ape ti ti on all eg in g t ha t Dun can ha d v io la te d m

ul ti pl e co nd it io ns of s up erv is edrel eas e, in cl ud in g: (1) fai lu re t o s ub m itwrit te n m on th ly repo rts be twee n M ay 20 08 an d J anua ry

20 09 (Vio la ti on1); (2) po si ti ve uri na lysis forbe nz od ia zep hi ne on Marc h 1 , 20 08 (Vio la ti on2); (3) fai lu re t o p art ic ip at e in dru g a fte rcar e tr eat m en t (Vi ol at io ns 4

3an d 5 ); an d (3 ) fai lu re t o p art ic ip at e in m en ta l h eal thco un se li ng on Feb ru ary 23 , 1 20 08 , Decem

be r 24 , 20 08 , Jan ua ry

7, 2 00 9 a ndJan ua ry

14 , 20 09 (Vio la ti on s 6 an d 7) . Inad di ti on , th e p et it io n a ll eg edth atDun can fai le d t o p erm ithi s Pr ob at io n Offi cer, J os ep h Wig le y , to vi si t h im at h om e o r el se whe re fro m Marc h 1 8, 2 00 8 t o Ju ne 22 , 20 08 be cau se Dun can cla im edto be su ffer in g fr om Met hi ci ll in -res is ta nt St ap hylo co ccu s Au reu s (“ MRS A”) (Vi ol at io n 3 ). The p et it io n fu rth er al le ge d t ha t, de sp it e m ul ti pl e reque st s, Du nc an“ fai le d t o v is ita ph y si ci andu rin g t hi s p eri odto co nf irm whe th er o r no t h e h adMRSA, s o t ha t” Offic er Wigl ey co ul d v is ithi m . The Pro ba ti on Offic e rec omm en de d t ha t Du nc an ’s term of s up erv is edrel eas e b e rev ok ed . On March 3, 2 00 9, the di st ric t co urt i ss ue d awarran t fo r Dun can ’s arre st , bu t at te m

pt s t o a rres t Du nc anwere u ns uc ces sf ul . The Pro ba ti on Offic e h ad no co nt actwith Du nc anfor ov er a year un ti l h e was arre st edon Marc h 3 0, 2 01 0. D. Seco nd Peti tio n to Revo ke Supe rv is ed Rel ea se On Ap ril 6, 2 01 0, the Pro ba ti on Offic e fi le d asec on d p et it io n t o re vo ke Dun can ’s supe rv is edrel eas e te rm . The p et it io n re -al le ge d the vi ol at io ns inth e fir stpe ti ti on an d a dd edtwo ne w all eg at io ns (Vio la ti on s 8 an d 9 ). Spe ci fic al ly,

Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, Dun canwas d is ch arg edfro m dru g t reatm en t o n Au gu st 1 5, 2 00 8 a ndJan ua ry

14 , 20 09 , du e to nu m ero us m is se d app oi nt m en ts

4th is supe rs ed in g p et it io n a ll eg edth at , on Feb ru ary 26 , 20 10 , Dun can co m m it te d ne w cri m in al co nduc t, i nc lu di ng st at e ch arg es of a gg rav at edass au ltan d b at te ry do m es ti c v io le nc e. Acco rd in g t o t he pe ti ti on , Dun canpu sh edhi s v ic ti m ’s hea d ag ai ns t a wal l, h el d agu n t o h er h eadan d t hr eat en edto ki ll he r. E. Rev oc at io n Hea ri ng Bec au se Dun can ’s m ai n c on te nt io n o n app eal rel at es to hi s ap pa ren t co m pe te nc e, we rev ie w whathapp en edat t he rev oc at io n i n d et ai l. At h is May 4, 20 10 rev oc at io n h eari ng , Dun can was re pr es en te d b y co un se l. Whenask ed whe th er h e h adtak enan y dru gs or m ed ic in es withi n t he pa st24 ho ur s, Du nc an res po nd edth athe ha d t ak enon ly col d m ed ic in e an d t ha t h e h adno t t ak enan yth in g th atwou ldaffe ctth e cl ari ty of hi s m in d. Dun canadm it te d Vi ol at io ns 1, 2 , 4, 5 , 6 an d 7 , bu t d en ie d Vi ol at io ns 3, 8 an d 9 . As to Vio la ti on3, fa il in g t o p erm itOffic er Wigl ey to vi si t, Dunc anarg ue d th atOffic er Wigl ey

advi se d Du nc anth athe (Offi cer Wig le y ) wou ldno t v is it Dun can ’s res id en ce an d Du nc anwas n otto vi si t the Pro ba ti on Offic e u nt il Dun can ha d b een cle aredby a do ct or . Dun can cla im edto have ev id en ce o f do ct orvi si ts , ho sp it al iz at io n a ndph ot og rap hs of t he in fect io n, b utne ve r in tro du cedth is ev id en ce. Dun can di d n ottes ti fy at t he he ari ng .

5As t o t he ne w cri m in al co nduc t i n Vi ol at io ns 8 an d 9 , Dun can advi se d t he

di st ric t co urt tha t the st at e ch arg es were d is m is se d a ndsubm it te d “ le tt ers of rel eas e” as to th e st at e ch arg es . On Ma rch 28 , 20 10 , th e v ic ti m , Dun can ’s li ve -in gi rlf rie ndLis a Harri s, was fou ndde adinth e Hil ls bo ro ug h C ou nt y Riv er. Dun can m ai nt ai ne d t ha t h e was no t a s us pe ctinhi s g irl fri en d’s h om ic id e an d was co op erat in g wi th in ve st ig at or s. Dun can ’s curren t Pr ob at io n Off ic er, Din a Ro m anLop ez, t es ti fie d t ha t Dun can ’s cas e was tra ns ferr edto he r in Nov em be r 20 08 be cau se sh e is th e m en ta l he al th sp eci al is t. Offi cer Lo pe z co nf irmed th atDun can was d ia gn os edwith PTSD, de pr es si on an d a nx ie ty. Offi cer Lo pe z was no t s up erv is in g Du nc anat t he ti m e o f al le ge d Vi ol at io n 3. Offi cer Lo pe z sa idth atDun can ’s fil e d oc um en te d t ha t n um ero us ti m es Offic er W ig le y in st ru ct edDun can to ve rif y hi s co nd it io n, b utco nt ai ne d n ot hi ng fro m Dun can un ti l a l et te r fax edon Ju ne 13 , 20 08 fro m a do ct or st at in g t ha t Du nc anha d pr ev io us ly suf

fere d fr om

MRSA, b utwas n otcu rren tl y co nt ag io us . Accor di ng to Offi cer Lo pe z, Offi cer Wig le y fel t h e co ul d n otsaf

el y go to th e res id en ce “un ti l so m ethi ng was c on firm ed .” As t o Vi ol at io ns 8 an d 9 , Offic er Lo pe z sp ok e with t he st at e at to rn ey , who advi se d h er tha t the ch arg es ag ai ns t Du nc anwere d is m is se d a fte r th e v ic ti m , Lis a 6Harri s, fa il edto ap pe ar fo r a d ep os it io n. Ap pr ox im at el y ten day s l at er, Harri s was fo un d d eadin th e ri ve r. A ho m ic id e in ve st ig at io n was pe nd in g wh il e th ey awai te d a to xi co lo gy repo rt f

ro m th e Co ro ne r’s Offi ce. Offi cer Lo pe z o bt ai ne d aco py of th e tape d 9 11 cal l, wh ic h was pl ay edat th e rev oc at io n h eari ng . Office r Lop ez t es ti fie d t ha t the 91 1 t ap e was co ns is te nt with t he po li ce re po rt, wh ic h i nd ic at edth atDun canan d h is gi rlf rie ndwere in vo lv edina st ran gu la ti on in ci de nton Decem be r 27 , 20 09 . Office r Lop ez in ve st ig at edth atearl ie r in ci de ntan d d et erm in edth atth e res ul ti ng ch arg es of ag gr av at edan d s im

pl e b at te ry

were dro pp edaft er Lis a Harri s s ig ne d awaiv er o f pr os ecu ti on . Accor di ng to th e p ol ic e rep ort fo r th e Dece m be r 27 , 20 09 in ci de nt , Dun can th rew Harri s t o t he gro un d, g rab be d h er thr oa t an d a tt em pt edto st ran gl e he r be fo re fl eei ng . Acco rd in g t o Off

ic er Lo pe z, whe n Du nc anfai le d t o c om pl y with t reat m en t by mis si ng ap po in tm en ts , Offic er Wigl ey “ in st itut edsan ct io ns an d a tt em pt edto work wi th [Dun can ] . . . ins te adof a sk in g t he Co urt fo r adve rs e act io n.” In M arch 20 09 , aft er Du nc anwas tran sf erre d t o Off

ic er Lo pe z’s supe rv is io n, Offi cer Lo pe z in fo rm edDun can sh e was “ go in g t o p ro ceedwith re qu es ti ng adve rs e act io n fr om th e Co urt.” Offi cer Lo pe z h adno furth er co nt actwith Du nc an . On two oc cas io ns , Offi cer Lo pe z atte m

pt edto vi si t Du nc an ’s res id en ce, b uta pi t b ul l was lo os e o n

7th e p ro pe rty. O ffi cer Lo pe z tr ie d t o c al l Du nc anon he r cel l p ho ne , “ go t n eg at iv e

res ul ts ” an d d idno t g etou t o f he r car . The go ve rn m en t re qu es te d a24 -m on th sen te nc e. Dun can ’s cou ns el arg ue d th atDun can su ffer edfro m subs ta nc e ab us e an d m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s, was in

“ba d s hape ” an d “ ne ed [ed ] he lp .” Dun can ’s cou ns el di d n otreque sta sp eci fic se nt en ce, b utreque st edth atno supe rv is edrel eas e acc om pany any ad di ti on al in carc erat io n. By a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Du nc an ha d c omm it te d Vi ol at io n 3 . The d is tri ctco urt s ta te d tha t Vi ol at io n 3 “ m ay be in co rrec tl y

word ed ,” bu t fo un d t ha t fr om Marc h 1 8 t o J un e 2 2, Offi cer Wig le y was un ab le to ch eckon Dun can be cau se Dun can di d n otpro m pt ly pro vi de pro of

th at he ha d M RSA. The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Du nc an ’s con du ctwas avi ol at io n of co nd it io n t enof h is supe rv is edrel eas e, whi ch requi redDun can to pe rm ithi s pr ob at io n o ffi cer t o v is ithi m at any tim e, atho m e o r el se whe re. The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the go ve rn m en t h adno t p ro ve d t he ag gr av at edass au ltan d b at te ry al le ge d i n Vi ol at io ns 8 an d 9 . The di stric t co urt co nf

irmed th atDun can ’s adv is ory gu id el in es ran ge was 8 to 14 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, wi th a st atut ory m ax im um of 2 4 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt s ta te d t ha t Du nc anwas a“pr ob le m ” an d a 8“ da ng er t o s oc ie ty” bas edon : (1 ) hi s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st ory , (2) hi s m en ta l

he al th pro bl em s, (3 ) th e fac t tha t the re were two 91 1 c al ls in vo lv in g h im , (3) th e Pro ba ti on Offic e h addi ffi cu lt y vi si ti ng hi m , and(4) he di d n ottu rnhi m se lf i n o n a warra ntth atwas o ut st an di ng forov er a year. The d is tri ctco urt s tre ss edit s co nc ernfor

pro te ct in g t he co m

m un it y an d Du nc an ’s “ in ab il it y

to do supe rv is ed rel eas e.” Th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d a24 -m on th sen te nc e wit h n o t erm of supe rv is edrel eas e. Dun can fil edth is ap pe al . II . DISCUSSI ON A. Fail ure t o H ol d Competen cy Hea ri ng Sua Spo nte Dun canarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e in qu ire d s uasp on te in to Dun can ’s com

pe te nc y to pa rti ci pa te inth e rev oc at io n h eari ng an d t o a dm itan y of th e al le ge d v io la ti on s o f supe rv is edrel eas e. 2

“ [A]t any tim e aft er the co m m en cem en t o f pr ob at io n o r supe rv is edrel eas e an d p rio r to th e co m

pl et io n o f th e se nt en ce,” t he di stric t co urt m us t s uasp on te co nduc t a h eari ng to de te rm in e th e d efen da nt ’s m en ta l co m pe te nc e “ if t he re i s reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th atth e d efen dantm ay pre se nt ly be su ffer in g fr om a m en ta l d is eas e o r de fectren de rin g h im m en ta ll y in co m pe te ntto th e ex te ntth athe

We reviewfor a

buse of discr etion a district cour t’s failure to conduct a c ompetency 2 hearing sua

sponte. United States v. Will iams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1972). 9is un ab le to un de rs ta ndth e n atur e an d c on se qu en ces of t he pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t

hi m or t o a ss is t p ro pe rly in h is de fen se .” 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 1( a). The di st ric t co urt m us t s uasp on te co nduc t a c om pe te nc y he ari ng when th e in fo rm at io n kno wn t o t he di st ric t co urt i s “ su ffi ci en t t o ra is e a b on a fi de do ub t re ga rd in g t he de fen da nt ’s co m pe te nc e.” Til le r v. Es po si to , 91 1 F .2d57 5, 5 76 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). In de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e su a sp on te he lda co m pe te nc y he ari ng , we con si de r: ( 1) ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s irra ti on al be ha vi or ; (2 ) th e de fen da nt ’s dem ean or

du rin g t he pro ceed in gs ; an d (3 ) pr io r m ed ic al op in io n a s t o th e d efen da nt ’s com

pe te nc e to st an d t ria l. Id . Here, the re i s n o e vi de nc e o f irrat io na l b eh av io r aro un d t he ti m e o f th e Ma y 20 10 rev oc at io n h eari ng . There was e vi de nc e th atDun can rep orte d h eari ng vo ic es in th e fal l 2 00 8. As a res ul t, the di st ric t co urt m od ifi edDun can ’s supe rv is ed rel eas e te rm s t o i nc lu de m en ta l h eal th co un se li ng . Howev er, the re i s n o e vi de nc e th atDun can was h eari ng vo ic es alm os t two years l at er, atth e ti m e o f hi s rev oc at io n h eari ng . Im po rta nt ly, th e tr an sc rip t o f th e rev oc at io n h eari ng su gg es ts Dun can ’s de m ean ordu rin g the he ari ng was une xc ep ti on al . Dun can res po nd edrat io na ll y an d ap pr op ria te ly to que st io ns an d d idno t g iv e th e d is tri ctco urt an y reas on to be li ev e th atDun can was, atth e ti m e o f th e h eari ng , un ab le to un de rs tandth e n atur e an d 10co ns eque nc es of t he rev oc at io n p ro ceed in g o r to ass is t h is co un se l i n h is de fen se .

The re was no pri orm ed ic al op in io n re ga rd in g Du nc an ’s m en ta l co m pe te nc y to st an d t ria l o r to pl eadgu il ty. The re was tes ti m on y

th atDun can ha d b een di ag no se d wi th PTSD, de pr es si on an d a nx ie ty, an d d efen se co un se l n ot edDun can ’s subs ta nc e ab us e an d m en ta l h eal th is su es , des cri bi ng Dun can as “ in ba d s hape .” Howev er, “ th e m ere pr es en ce o f m en ta l i ll ne ss or o th er m en ta l d is ab il it y at t he ti m e” d oe s n otm ean th e de fen da ntis m en ta ll y

in co m pe te nt . See Bo li us v. Wain wrig ht , 59 7 F .2d98 6, 9 90 (5 th Cir . 19 79 ). And , alt ho ug h d efen se co un se l was aware o f Dun can ’s m en ta l 3 he al th pro bl em s, h e d idno t ra is e th e is su e o f Dun can ’s com pe te nc y . See Un it ed St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z, 79 9 F .2d64 9, 6 55 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atde fen se co un se l’s fa il ur e to rai se th e is su e o f th e d efen dant ’s com pe te nc y is pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntwas c om pe te nt ). Giv enth e rec or d a s a wh ol e, we co nc lu de th atth e in fo rm at io n t he di stric t co urt h adat t he rev oc at io n h eari ng di d no t ra is e a “bo nafid e d oubt ” as to Dun can ’s m en ta l co m pe te nc e. B. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence as to Vi ol at io n 3

Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc) ( holding that 3 decisions of the f

ormer F ifth Circuit on or befor e September 30, 1981 are binding pr ece dent in the Eleve nth Circuit). 11Dun canarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Du nc andi d n otpe rm it

Offi cer Wig le y

to vi si t h im

be twee n M arch an d J un e 2 00 8 was no t s up po rte d b y th e rec or d. 4 Und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e), a d is tri ctco urt m ay rev ok e a d efen da nt ’s term of supe rv is edrel eas e an d, af te r co ns id eri ng th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, m ay im po se a pr is on sen te nc e whe n i t fi nd s b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntvi ol at eda co nd it io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e. 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Sweet in g, 4 37 F.3d11 05 , 11 07 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Here, Offi cer Lo pe z’s te st im on y supp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g. Offi cer Lo pe z te st ifi edth atDun can ’s cas e fi le in di cat edth atOffic er Wigl ey ask ed Dun can nu m ero us ti m es to pro vi de m ed ic al co nf irmatio n o f hi s h ig hl y

co nt ag io us MRS A in fect io n a ndth atDun can kn ew Offi cer Wig le y di d n otfeel saf

e v is it in g hi m un ti l the n. Fu rth erm or e, th e fi le co nt ai ne d n o s uc h m ed ic al co nf irmatio n u nt il th e Ju ne 13 , 20 08 fax edlet te r st at in g t ha t Du nc anwas n o l on ge r co nt ag io us . In ot he r wor ds , Dun can ’s fai lu re t o c om pl y with Off ic er Wigl ey ’s rep eat edreque st s

We reviewa district cour t’s revoc ation of a supe rvised re lease term for an abuse of 4 discretion. United States v. F razier, 26 F .3d 110, 112 (11th Cir. 1994). A district cour t’s finding s of fa ct made at a re vocation hea ringare binding unless they areclea rly err oneous. United States v. Almand, 992 F .2d 316, 318 (11th Cir. 1993). 12ov er a thr ee-m on th pe rio d e ffec ti ve ly andun de rs ta nd ab ly prev en te d a ny vis it s

du rin g t ha t t im e. Dun can ’s com

pl ai ntth atth e g ov ern m en t d idno t p res en t Offi cer Wig le y ’s te st im on y is un av ai li ng . Firs t, Du nc andi d n otrai se th is ob jecti on inth e d is tri ct co urt. Sec on d, the Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e are no t ap pl ic ab le inrev oc at io n pr oc eed in gs , andth e d is tri ctco urt m ay , aft er b al an ci ng th e d efen da nt ’s co nf ro nt at io n ri gh t ag ai ns t the go ve rn m en t’s re as on s fo r de nyin g c on fro nt at io n, adm ithe ars ay

ev id en ce i t fi nd s re li ab le . See Un it edSta te s v . Frazi er, 2 6 F .3d11 0, 11 4 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 4) . Furt he rm or e, on ap pe al Dun can do es no t ch al le ng e th e rel iabi li ty of Offi cer Lo pe z’s he ars ay tes ti m on y

or a rg ue th atitwas i na dm is si bl e un de r Fraz ie r’s ba la nc in g t es t. 5 C. Rea so na bl enes s o f 24 -m on th Sen tenc e

Wit hin its di scussion of the suff iciency of the e vidence supporting V iolation 3, Duncan’ s 5 appellate brief states in one sentenc e that the district cour t “unfa irly

permitted the Gove rnment to amend the a lleg ations in such a manne r so as to ensur e that it secur ed a violation” a nd that “the Gover nment’s attempt to amend the violation at the c lose of testimony” denie d him notice to defe nd the alleg ation. To the extent Duncan attempts to m ake a due proc ess ar gument, he did not raise it in the district cour t. Furthe rmore, D uncan’ s appellate brief of fer s no leg al ana ly sis or supporting c itation to authority . Under the circ umstances, Dunc an did not sufficie ntly prese rve this iss ue for

appellate revie w. See United States v. Jernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1284 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (e x plaining that an issue was a bandoned wherethe def

endant’ s brief ma de only

“passing ref ere nces” to the issue “as ba ckground to the cla ims he does expressly advanc e or [are ] buried within those claims”); see also Fe d. R. App. P. 28(a)(9) (A) ( requiringarg ument portion of the brief to c ontain “conte ntions and the rea sons for them, with citations to the authorities and pa rts of the re cord on which the appe llant relies”) . 13Dun canco nt en ds hi s 2 4- m on th sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly andsubs tant iv el y

un reas on ab le . Befo re i m

po si ng a pr is on term

up on rev oc at io n, the di st ric t co urt m us t co ns id er the fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e). The 6 di st ric t co urt al so m

us t co ns id er the po li cy

st at em en ts inCh ap te r 7 o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , on e o f whi ch pro vi de s re co m m en de d, n on -b in di ng ran ge s of im pr is on m en t. Un it edSta te s v . Sil va , 44 3 F .3d79 5, 7 99 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e rev ie w a se nt en ce i m po se d upo n re vo cat io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e fo r reas on ab le ne ss . Sweet in g, 4 37 F.3dat 1 10 6- 07 . Our rea so nabl en es s re vi ew ap pl ie s t he de fere nt ia l ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 46 , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 1, 5 94 (20 07 ). W e fi rs t l oo k a t wh ethe r th e di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d a ny sig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r an d the n a t wh ethe r th e se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e und er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Un it edSta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

The re levant § 3553(a) fa ctors that the c ourt must consider ar e: (1) the nature and 6 circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d to aff ord ade quate de terre nce; ( 3) the ne ed to protec t the public; (4) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educa

tional or vocational trainingor medica l car e; (5) the SentencingGuidelines rang e and pe rtinent policy statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (6) the nee d to avoid unwanted se ntencing

disparities; and (7) the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims . See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (cr oss refe renc ing 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a)(1) , (a) (2)( B) -(D) , (a) (4)- (7)) . 14The party chal le ng in g the sen te nc e h as th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis un reas on ab le .

Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). As t o h is pro cedur al reas on ab le ne ss cla im , Dun can arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt re li edon cle arl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s. W e d is ag ree. Du nc an ’s ext en si ve 7 cri m in al hi st ory

was s up po rte d b y

th e cri m in al hi st ory

sec ti on of h is PSI, t o wh ic h Dun can ha s n ev er ra is edan y ob jecti on . See Un it edSta te s v . Beck le s, 5 65 F.3d 83 2, 8 44 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (co nc lu di ng th atfact s i n the PSI t o wh ic h t he de fen da nt do es no t o bjec t ar e d eem edadm it te d fo r pu rp os es of s en te nc in g) . Dun can adm it te d fa il in g t o p art ic ip at e in m en ta l h eal th an d s ub st an ce ab us e co un se li ng . The di st ric t co urt h eardth e 9 11 cal l m ad e b y Lis a Harri s i n wh ic h s he st at edth at Dun can ha d h el d agun t o h er h eadan d t hr eat en edto ki ll he r an d m en ti on edan earl ie r in ci de ntin whi ch Dun can ha d t rie d t o s trang le he r. Dun can di d n otob ject 8 to th e ad m is si onof t hi s ev id en ce, an d t he di st ric t co urt was ab le to m ak e it s o wn de te rm in at io n o f th e wei gh t t o a cco rdit . Office r Lop ez’s t es ti m on y supp orte d t he fin di ng th atDun can pre ve nt edOffic er Wigl ey fro m vi si ti ng hi m

by fail in g t o Dunca n does not dispute that his recommende d imprisonment rang e wa s properly 7 calc ulated as 8 to 14 months, that the district court tre ated this rang e as a dvisory and that the district court consider ed the § 3553( a) f actor s. Be causeDunca

n’s orig inal firea

rm offe nse wa s a Class D felony , Dunca

n’s maximum statutory

term of imprisonment upon re vocation wa s two year s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)( 3). The district cour

t also appea

rs to have r eviewe d copies of the police reports for the two 8 incidents, although these reports and the tape d 911 call ar e not in the re cord on a ppeal. 15pr om

pt ly pro vi de co nf

irmatio n o f hi s m ed ic al co nd it io n, tha t Offi cer Lo pe z’s own at te m pt s t o v is itDun can were thwa rte d b y th e p res en ce o f a p itbu ll , andth at Dun can di d n otco nt actth e Pro ba ti on Offic e fo r ov er a year du rin g h is supe rv is ed rel eas e. Dun can ’s cla im

th atth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto ad equa te ly exp la in th e se nt en ce i t i m

po se d i s al so be li edby the reco rd . The d is tri ctco urt ci te d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d s pe ci fic al ly dis cu ss edsev eral fact or s, i nc lu di ng Dun can ’s hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s an d t he ne edto pro te ctth e p ub li c. Lik ewis e, Dun canha s n otsh own th athi s 2 4- m on th sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . Dun can ’s cri m in al hi st ory sp an s al m os t fi fte eny ears an d b eg anwhen he was o nl y fif te eny ears ol d. Du nc anha s a l on g h is to ry of subs ta nc e ab us e p ro bl em s. Du nc anals o h as st ru gg le d wi th m en ta l h eal th pr ob le m s, i nc lu di ng PTSD an d p an ic di so rd er. Aga in stth is ba ck dr op , whi le on supe rv is edrel eas e, Dun canrep eat ed ly fail edto ap pe ar fo r m en ta l h eal th or subs ta nc e ab us e co un se li ng , tes te d p os it iv e fo r il le ga l dru g u se , st op pe d fi li ng th e requi redm on th ly repo rts with h is Pro ba ti on Offic er, d idno t m ak e iteas y forhi s Pro ba ti on Offic ers to vi si t h im an d e ve ntua ll y

di sapp eare d fo r ov er a year. Duri ng th aty ear, Dunc an ’s li ve -ingi rlf rie ndm ad e two 91 1 c al ls cla im in g t ha t Du nc anha d ba tt eredhe r. 16Giv enth e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we can no t s ay th e 2 4- m on th se nt en ce was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

17