NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0692n .06 Fi led : N ovemb er 1 3, 20 08 No . 07- 1796 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. DEON ANTO NIO THOMPS ON, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: MARTI N, DAUGHTREY, and KET HLEDGE, Circuit Jud ges.

P ERC UR IA M. T h e d e fe n d a n t , De o n A n t o n io T h o m p s o n , a p p e a ls the district cou rt’s rev ocat ion of

supe rvise d release , cont end ing that the ev iden ce relied up on b y the cou rt w as i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt rev oc at i on . W e fi nd n o er ror a nd a ffir m. The defendant w as or ig ina ll y se ntenc ed i n Febr uar

y 1997, to a term of

80 months in pr is on, to be follo w ed by a 60 -mont h s uper

v is ed rele ase per iod , w hic h he beg an s er v ing in Apr il 2003. In September 2006, of ficers f ro m the Det ro itPol ic e D epar tment ar re ste d the defendant for

felo ny f irear ms posse ss ion

. The ar re st occ ur re d in a re si dence l ocat ed at 437 J e f fe rson Cour

t, Det ro it , M ic hig an. Both the p oli ce inv est ig ati on repor t and the a rrest ing of

f icer’s testimo ny at th e de fend ant ’s state cou rt trial i ndica ted that , as policeNo. 07- 1796

United S tates

v. T hom pson

- 2 - ent ered the reside nce, T hom pson w as eithe r in or nea r the no rthea st bed room . A search of that room rev eal ed tw o loaded handg uns, one on top of a dress er

and the other

i nsi de a closet . According to the trial court testim ony, of f icers rec o ve re d United St ate s mail bear ing the defendant’ s n ame from t he same dress er top a s o ne of the g uns. Ac cordin g to th e investig ation report, T hom pson adm itted to police th at he resided a t the add ress. Tho m p so n wa s tr ie d t o t h e b e n ch i n st ate c our t and , atthe conc lus ion of the prosec uti on’ s cas e, the tri al ju dg e granted his m oti on for a direct ed v erdict, rul ing thatthe sta te ha d fail ed to es tabl is h the el ement of pos ses si on bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. In a subs eq uent opi nio n ent it led “ re ason for di smi ss al, ” the t ri al jud g e s ummari z ed th e tes ti mony

present ed by

the prosec uti on and sta ted the reason s for di smi ss al, findi ng that becau se no w it ness tes ti fied th at t he defendant w as ins ide the bedroom w hen t he w eapon w as re cov ered, a nd bec ause a thi rd -p arty w as seen in prox imi ty to the be d ro om at the time , the state had not suf f iciently esta blished tha t the gun w as the defend ant ’s. Further, the j udg e r ule d tha t t he presenc e o f t h e defendant’ s “

jun k mai l” on t he dress er w as not enoug h to est abl is h proof of res ide ncy and re ferred to the 25 c a lib er g un found on the dress er as a “ chi ck ” g un ( i. e., a g un th at a w oman w oul d ow n)

. Des pit e th e defendant’ s a cq uittal on t he s tate charg e, t he probati on depa rt ment sought revocation of

the de fend ant ’s supervised release b a s e d u pon these same facts. At t h e s uper

v is ed rele ase re v ocat ion hear ing , t he prosec uti on i ntroduce d bot h the inv est ig ati on repor

t and the tes ti mon y su m m a riz ed i n the st ate c our t’ s o pin ion w it houtNo. 07- 1796

United S tates

v. T hom pson

T he district court fo und four v iolation s of the cond itions fo r supe rv ised relea se; it 1 foun d tha t ( 1) Th om ps on c om mi tt ed t he c r i me o f fel on y fi rea r ms p os s es s i on ; ( 2) h e did n o tre p o rtt o probat i o n a s re q u i re d ; ( 3 ) h e fa i l e d t o n o t i fy t h e p ro b a t i o n d e p a rt me n to f a chang e in res ide nce; and (4 ) he fail ed to notifythe probati on depa rt ment of hi s a rresti n a ti m e ly m a n n e r. The d efendant w as acq uitted o f a fifth charg e al leg ing thathe d id not

- 3 - obje ction. Proba tion Of

f icer Tim oth y

Genyk fu rther test if ied th at t he p roba tion d epa rtme nt’s re q uestfor rev ocat ion w as based upon the i nv est ig ati on re por t and that nei ther

Geny k n or other members o f the depar tment condu cte d any

i ndependen t i nv est ig ati on. T hom pson and h is g irlfriend , Charlene Clark, testif ied for the d efense . Clark adm itted to bein g the person seen in prox imity to the no rthea st bed room imm edia tely b e fo re t h e pol ic e ent ered th e home; dis cl aimed ow nershi p of the g uns; and deni ed th at the re had ev er bee n a gun o n t h e d re sser at all. In his testim ony, Th om pson initially den ied an y

conn ection t o the 4 37 Jef ferson Co urt residen ce, oth er than v isiting the hou se on a fewoc cas ion s. Later, how ev er , Thompso n admi tted that he recei v ed mai l, i ncl udi ng employ ment c heck s, at the address . He als o i nsi ste d tha t t he mai l found by pol ic e had not been s eiz ed from t he dress er top but h ad, i nst ead, been remov ed from h is poc ket s. Fol low ing the rev ocat ion heari ng , the dist ri ct cour t entered an order

rev oki ng D eon Thompson’ s s uper

v is ed rele ase. Rel y ing on the inv est ig ati on repor t, the s ummary

of the of f icers’ tri al testim ony, and the incred ibility of the defend ant ’s te stimo ny, the district court foun d by “ at le a s ta prepo nde rance of the evidence thatthe de fend antdid posse ss a fire ar m at t he J efferson Ho u se .” The cour t al so found the d efendant g uil ty of the t hree other su per v is ed rele ase v iol ati ons and s entenc ed hi m to 3 6 months ’ impr is onment. 1No. 07- 1796

United S tates

v. T hom pson

maint ain co nsi ste nt empl oy ment.

- 4 - On ap peal , Thompso n c hal len g es onl y the deter minat ion that he committed a new cr ime w hil e on super

v is ed rel ease. He rais es no chall eng e to the other f ind ing s of g uil t or to t he reason abl eness of his se ntenc e. W e rev iew

a di str ict c our

t' s rev ocat ion of su p e rvised re lea se for an abuse of d is c re t io n . Se e Un it e d S t a t e s v. K ir b y, 418 F .3d 6 21, 6 26 ( 6th Ci r. 2005)

. To re v erse the low er court’s revocation orde r, w e mu st have a “def inite and f irm conviction tha t the court bel ow co mmitt ed a cl ear

er ro r of ju d gm e n t in t he c oncl usi on i t reache d upon a w eig hin g of the rele v ant fact ors.” U nit ed St ates v . St ephens on, 9 28 F .2d 7 28, 7 32 ( 6th Ci r. 1991) (q uoti ng Bal ani v . I NS , 669 F .2d 1 157, 1160 ( 6th C ir . 198 2) ). T h e d is t ri c tco u rtm a y re vo k e a t e rm o f su p e rvi s e d re le a s e if i tf i n d s “b y a preponderance of th e e vidence tha t t he defendant v iol ated a c ondi ti on of sup er v is ed re lea se. ” 18 U .S.C

. § 3583( e) (3 ); see als o Uni ted Stat es v . W ebb, 30 F. 3d 687, 688- 689 (6 th C ir . 199 4)

. The preponderance sta ndard req uires a l ess er q uan tu m o f proof and enabl es the t ri er

of fa ctt o m ake a det er minat ion of g uil t t hat i t c oul d notmake if the sta ndard w ere tha t at tr ial , i. e., g uil t bey ond a re asona ble doubt. See In re W ins hip , 397 U. S. 3 58, 3 68 ( 1 9 7 0 ). Mo re ov er , “ re v ocat ion hear ing s a re more flex ibl e” than cr imi nal tr ial s. S te p h e n son, 928 F. 2d at732. As a resul t, the d is tr ict c our t may rely upon “reason abl y

reli abl e ev ide nce, ” i ncl udi ng hearsay . Id.No. 07- 1796

United S tates

v. T hom pson

- 5 - The defen d ant a ss erts on appe al that the e v ide nce present ed atthe re v ocat ion hear ing w as ins uff ic ien tl y reli abl e to suppo rtthe findi ng thathe commi tted a new cr imi nal offense. The de fendant’s pr imar y arg ument i s t hat t he di str ict c our t er re d by

bas ing i ts f inding solely on the probatio n of f icer’s testimo ny sum ma riz ing the origi nal Detroit p olice inv est ig ati on repor

t. R ely ing upon Ki rb y and Stephe nson, the defendant arg ues that beca use th e prob ation of f icer lacked pe rsona l know ledge ab o u t the ev ent s described in the report, be cause he failed to cond uct an indep end entinv estigation into tho se events, and becaus e he w as new ly assi g ned to the defendant’ s c ase, hi s t est imony prov ide d an ins uff ic ien t bas is for t he c our t’ s fin din g . In K ir by , w e uphel d the di str ict c our t’ s rev ocat ion of super

v is ed rele ase w here the ev ide nce cons is ted o f jus t one probati on officer ’s tes ti mony . S ee 418 F. 3d at626. How ever, w e em pha siz ed in tha t case th at th e of f icer had p erson ally

rev iew ed su rv eillance tapes sh ow ing the defendant c ommitt ing the cr ime at i ss ue and had al so spok en w it h the investig ating police of

f icers. See id. In Steph enso n, w e rev ersed the d is t ri c tco urt’s rev ocat ion of

the de fend ant ’s supervised r elea se, no ting that th e prob ation of f icer’s testim ony w as “me ager” and con taine d “v eryfew facts” co ncern ing the allegation s in dis pute. Se e 928 F. 2d at731. There, t he onl y ev ide nce suppo rt ing the cour t’ s fin din g that Stephe nson commi tted a new as saul t w as the p ro bati on officer ’s tes ti mony t h a t t he de fen da nth ad b ee n ar res te d an d th e de fen da nt ’ s a dmission t ha t “ [t]h ere w as s om e pushi ng i n the re .” I d.No. 07- 1796

United S tates

v. T hom pson

- 6 - In t his ca se, the defendan t cit e s th ese precede nts for t he proposi ti on th at i n a re v ocat ion proceed ing , a probati on of ficer ’s testi mony

aboutthe defendant’ s n ew cr imes must be bas ed upon the off ic er ’s ow n t h o ro u gh and i ndependen t i nv est ig ati on of the a lle gat io n s. In th e al te rn a ti ve, su gges ts th e d e fe n d a n t, a wit n e ss wit h p e rso n a l kn o wled ge mu st subm it an af

f idavit oro f

fe r li v e test imo ny at th e revocation p rocee ding. Th is prop osition , howev er, is plainlyn ot conso nan t w ith the ca ses cited to supp ort it. Rather, the thoroug hness of

the tes ti fyi ng w it ness ’s ow n i nv est ig ati on or the extent of his personal know led g e are s impl y

factors to be w eig hed by the dis tr ict j udg e. See K ir by , 418 F .3d a t 626- 27 ( dis cus si ng i mport ance of “i ndi ci a of reli abi li ty ”)

. Cl ear ly , Kir by di d notes tabl is h an in d e p e n d e n t in ve s t ig a t io n re qu ir e m e n t fo r su p e rvi s e d re le a s e re vo c a t io n ca s e s . Si m il a rl y, in Step hen son, w e exp la in ed th at ou r concern was “ notw ith the natu re of the evidence cons ide re d butw it h the pauci ty of reli abl e ev ide nce. ” 928 F. 2d at732 (i nter nal q uotat ion s omitted)

. Con trar

y to the d efe n d a n t’ s i mpli ci t s ug g est ion , t herefore, a w it ness need not hav e firsth and k now led g e of the u n d e rlying facts i n order to tes ti fy compet entl y at a rev ocat ion he aring. See id. at 7 32 (pe rmitting use of hea rsayev iden ce). W e c oncl ude t hat t he di str ict c ourt’ s d eci si on i n thi s c ase w as, i n fact, bas ed on suf f iciently reliable evidence . Desp it e the defend ant ’s claims to the contrary, the district court did not ba se its f indings solely on th e investig ato r’s repo rt or the prob ation of f icer’s summar y of it s c ontent s. In addi ti on to the re por t, the d is tr ict c our

t c it ed th e s ummari z ed testim ony of

t hree police of

f icers at the state court proce edin g and the “increasin gly inc re dib le” tes ti mony

offered by

the defendant atthe re v ocat ion hear ing as reason s for i tsNo. 07- 1796

United S tates

v. T hom pson

- 7 - findi ng . The pol ic e off ic ers’ tes ti mony , as summar iz ed in the sta te cour t’ s opi nio n, l ink ed the d efendant to the g uns and to the pla ces in w hic h theyw ere disc ov ered. Mo re ov er , t he defend antof

fered test im ony that was at times bo th inco nsisten t and detrim ent al to his case. For examp le, t h e d e fe n dan t claime d tha t he ha d be en to the 43 7 Jef ferson Court residen ce only “a coup le of t ime s,” b ut he later adm itted t hath e received impo rtantmail, includin g his paychecks, atthe reside nce. The district court app ropriate ly w eighed th is testim ony in determ ining tha t the defend ant ’s testim ony w as not credible . Of course, false t e s t im o n y m a y b e co n s id e re d “a f f ir m a t ive e vid e n c e o f

gu il t ” b y t h e t ri e r of fa c t

. W ri gh tv. W e s t , 5 0 5 U. S

. 2 7 7 , 2 9 6 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( p lu ra li t y o p in io n b y T h o m a s , J. ); se e a ls o Dye r v. Ma cdoug al, 201 F. 2d 265, 269 (2 nd Ci r. 1952) (L. Hand, J.) ( “[ T]here i s n o al ter nati v e but to assu me the trut h of

w hat[a fabricat ing w itness] d enie s”). Furthe rmore , the report itself of fered a deta iled acco untof the events a nd a lone w ould have been suf f icient evidence for th e c our

t’ s fin din g . As the d is tr ict c our t not ed: [T]he I nv est ig ator ’s R epor t reflect s, (a ) De fendant admitted he resi ded at437 Jef ferson Ct., Detroit, M ichigan (the “ Jef ferson hou se”), w here the guns w ere found, ( b) m a il a t the h ouse w as address ed to D efendant atthe Jefferson hou se add ress, and (c) t he guns w ere foun d in the Northea st bed room w here the p oli ce found Defendant

. Nei ther the pol ic e repor

t nor the su m m a rize d tr ial tes ti mony l ack s t he i ndi ci a of re li abi li ty found to be so ess enti al in Kir by and in si mil ar

ca ses dec ide d by

thi s c our

t. See e.g . U nit ed St ates v . Low enst e in, 108 F. 3d 80, 83- 84 ( 6th C ir . 199 7)

. Nor does the evidence relied upo n raise the conce rns cited in Ste phe nson , in w hich barely any ev iden ceNo. 07- 1796

United S tates

v. T hom pson

- 8 - of g uil t w as pre sent ed. Here, t he ev ide nce prov ide d a fact ual bas is both for t he probati on off ic er ’s tes ti mony

and for th e c our

t’ s fin din g that

the d e fe n d a nt v iol ated the s uper v is ed re lea se condi ti ons by

co mmitt ing a ne w

offense. The di str ict c our t’ s reason abl y -d er iv ed factual dete rmi nati ons are enti tl ed to deferenc e. The defendant has not made a s how ing suffici ent t o s uppor

t a “d efini te and f ir m conv icti on that the court below co mmitt ed a cl ear er ro r. ” Therefore, w e c oncl ude t hat t he di str ict c our t di d notabus e i ts dis cret io n , and i ts jud g ment mus t be uphel d. AFFIRMED.