[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 31 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 7- cr-0 00 50 -SPM -WCS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us GUS DASHER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la ntGus Dash er ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t re vo ki ng hi s Case: 12-10318 Date Filed: 09/12/2012 Page: 1 of 4supe rv is edrel eas e an d i m po si ng a te n- m on th sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t p ur su an t to 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ). The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Das he r co m m it te d s ix vi ol at io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e co nd it io ns , in cl ud in g v io la ti ng st at e la ws, fai li ng to subm itm on th ly repo rts , fai li ng to no ti fy hi s p ro ba ti on off

ic er wh en arre st edor que st io ne d b y law en fo rcem en t, an d fa il in g t o n ot ify his pro ba ti on of fic er o f a ch an ge in ad dr es s. Onap pe al , Dash er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erre d b y fai li ng to m ak e ex pl ic itfin di ng s ab ou t t he ev id en ce an d re as on s i t re li ed up on in rev ok in g h is supe rv is edrel eas e. W e g en eral ly revi ew a d is tri ctco urt’s re vo cat io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr az ie r , 26 F.3d11 0, 1 12 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Howev er, wh ere a n o bjec ti on is rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Gr es ha m , 32 5 F .3d12 62 , 12 65 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). To p rev ai l u nd er the pl ai n- erro r st an da rd , a de fen dantm us t s ho w th at :

“ (1 ) anerro r oc cu rred ; (2 ) th e err orwas p la in ; (3 ) itaffe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s; an d (4 ) itser io us ly affect edth e fai rn es s o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id . W it h reg ardto whet he r anerro r affe ct edsubs ta nt ia l ri gh ts , “ [i]n m os t ca se s, a c ou rt o f ap pe al s ca nn otco rrec t t he for fei te d e rro r un le ss th e d efen dantsh ows th atth e err or was pre jud ic ia l.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ol an o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 4, 1 13 S. Ct. 1 77 0, 17 78 , 12 3 L. Ed. 2 d 5 08 (19 93 ). 2

Case: 12-10318 Date Filed: 09/12/2012 Page: 2 of 4“ Und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e), a d is tri ctco urt m ay , up on fin di ng by a

pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t a d efen da ntha s v io la te d aco nd it io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e, rev ok e th e te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e an d i m po se a te rm

of im pr is on m en t af

te r co ns id eri ng cert ai n fa ct or s s etforth in18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a).” Uni te d Sta tes v. S

wee ti ng , 43 7 F .3d11 05 , 11 07 (11 thCir . 20 06 ); se e a ls o 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ). In Uni te d Sta tes v. C op elan d, we cl ari fie d t ha t due pro ces s requi res th e d is tri ctco urt t o s ta te “ th e rea so ns forth e rev oc at io n o f supe rv is ed rel eas e an d t he ev id en ce t he de ci si on m ak er re li edup on .” Co pe la nd , 20 F.3d41 2, 41 4 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 4) . See al so Mor riss ey v. Br ewe r , 40 8 U.S. 4 71 , 48 9, 9 2 S . Ct. 25 93 , 26 04 , 33 L. Ed. 2d48 4 (1 97 2) (ho ld in g t ha t, t o s at is fy du e p ro ces s i n t he co nt ex t o f pa ro le rev oc at io n, the fact fin de r m us t i ss ue a st at em en t as to th e ev id en ce re li edonan d t he reas on s fo r rev oc at io n) . Mor eo ve r, “ ge ne ral co nc lu so ry reas on s . . . do no t m eet[th e] du e p ro ces s re qu ire m en t t ha t t he rev ok in g ju dg e st at e th e fac tu al fin di ng s an d t he reas on s re li edup on forrev oc at io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. La cey , 64 8 F .2d44 1, 4 45 (5t h C ir. Un itA Ju ne 19 81 ). In Co pe la nd , we co nc lu de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt h adpro vi de d s uf fic ie ntreas on s b ecau se it“ se t fo rth th e sp eci fic witne ss tes ti m on y itrel ie d upo n i n re ach in g i ts co nc lu si on s, i ts reas on s fo r cre di ti ng [a] witn es s, an d i ts jus ti fic at io n fo r rev ok in g app el la nt ’s supe rv is edrel eas e.” Co

pe la nd , 20 F.3dat 4 15 .

3 Case: 12-10318 Date Filed: 09/12/2012 Page: 3 of 4W e co nc lu de fro m th e rec or d h ere t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby fail in g t o st at e “ th e rea so ns for

th e rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e an d e vi de nc e th e de ci si on m ak er re li edup on .” Howev er, b ecau se Dash er ra is es th is arg um en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r on ly. Dash er h as no t s ho wn t ha t th e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in gs be lo w wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t ab se ntth e err or . At the rev oc at io n h eari ng , Dash er co nc ed edsev eral vi ol at io ns an d t he re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce p res en te d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o fi ndth atDash er co m m it te d th e v io la ti on s t ha t wer e co nt es te d. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ct co urt d idno t p la in ly err bec au se Dash er ca nn otsh ow tha t t he co urt’s erro r affe ct ed hi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Th us , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t re vo ki ng Das he r’s supe rv is edrel eas e. AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 12-10318 Date Filed: 09/12/2012 Page: 4 of 4