FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 1, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 11712 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 8 - 0 0 2 1 0 - CR- T- 2 4 - M SS 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 D E R R I C K H A N K E R S O N , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 1, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: In A ug ust19 98 , pu rs uantt o a pl eaagre em ent , D erri ck H ankers on pl ed2

gui l ty t o one c ountof

c ons pi r i ng t o vi ol a t e 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) by di s tr i but i ng c oc a i ne ba s e orpos s e s s i ng c oc a i ne ba s e w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced h i m t o a p ri so n t erm o f 9 2 m o n th s, f o llo w e d b y af

iv e - y e a rte rm o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . O n F e b ru a ry 2 , 2 0 0 6 , H a n k e r s o n w a s a rr e s te d f o rv io la tin g th e te rm s o f h is s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd on F e brua ry 14, the di s tr i c tc our the l d af i na l r e voc a t i on he a r i ng. T he c our tf

ound tha the ha d vi ol a t e d the t e rm s of hi s r e l e a s e a nd s e nt e nc e d hi m t o apr i s on t e rm of 60 m onths . H e now appe a l s , c ont e ndi ng tha tthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on i n revok i ng hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se because there w a s n o t s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t af in d in g th a t h e h a d w illf

u lly a tte m p te d to s e l l c oc a i ne be c aus e : ( 1) the s t a t e dr oppe d the drug c ha r ge ; ( 2) he de ni e d s e l l i ng c oc a i ne , though a dm i tt i ng tha the a tt e m pt e d t o s e l l m a r i j ua na ; a nd ( 3) the c o n f id e n tia l in f

o rm a n t th e p o lic e h a d u s e d h a d ah is to ry o f c r im e s o f

d is h o n e s ty . W e rev i ew a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s rev o cat i o n o f su p erv i sed rel ease u n d er an ab u se o f d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d . U n ite d S ta te s v . F r a z ie r , 2 6 F .3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . U nd er§ 3 58 3(e) , the courtm ay“ re vo ke a t erm of supervi se d rel ea se , and requi re th e d efen d an tt o serv e i n p ri so n al l o r p arto f th e t erm o f su p erv i sed rel ease autho ri ze d b y s t atut e . . . i f the court. . . fi nd s by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t v io la te d ac o n d itio n o f [ h is ] s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e .” 1 8 U .S .C . §3

3583( e ) ( 3) . T he pr e ponde r a nc e s t a nda r d “ doe s notr e l i e ve the s e nt e nc i ng c our tof the du ty of e xerc i si ng the cr i t i ca l fa ct -f i nd i ng funct i on thathas a l w ay s bee n i nhe r e nti n the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s . . . P r e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e i s notahi gh s t a nda r d of

pr oof . I ti s not , how e ve r , at oothl e s s s t a nda r d e i the r . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A s k e w , 1 9 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in re v o k in g H an k er so n ’s supervi se d rel ea se because the t es t i m on y of the i nv es t i gat i ng det ec t i ve w as suff i ci entt o est abl i sh by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence thatH ankers on had c o m m itte d ac o c a in e tr a f f ic k in g v io la tio n . H an k erso n co n t en d s th atu n d er th e 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) sen t en ci n g fact o rs, hi s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e – be c aus e the c our tba s e d i ton aG r a de A vi ol a t i on, w he n he onl y c om m i tt e d aG r a de C vi ol a t i on. W hen i m po si ng a s ent ence af t erre vo ca t i on , the di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der the § 3553 f

a c t or s i nc l udi ng: ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e ; ( 2) the hi s t ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ; (3) the need for the se nt ence t o ref l ec t the s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e , pr om ot e r e s pe c tf

orthe l a w , a nd prov i de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offe nse; and (4) the ki nd s of s ent ence s a nd s e nt e nc i ng r a nge e s t abl i s he d by the G ui de l i ne s , a nd i n the c a s e of a vi ol at i on of supervi se d rel ea se , the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes or pol i cy s ta te m e n ts is s u e d b y th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S w e e t i ng, 437 F . 3d 1105, 1106 - 07 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . S e c t i on4

35 83 (e )( 3) proh i bi t s ase nt ence of m ore than 5 ye ar s i n p ri son, “ i f the offens e that r e s u lte d in th e te rm o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e is ac la s s A f e lo n y .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3583( e ) ( 3) . A s w e c a nnotf aul tthe c our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tH a nke r s on com m i tt ed a c l as s A fe l on y, and the courtprop er l y c on si dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fact o rs, th e sen t en ce th e co u rti m p o sed i s d u e t o b e, an d i s, AF F I R ME D.