United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 21-60950

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Detrick Doyle, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:15-CR-151-1

______________________________

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Southwick and Oldham, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Detrick Doyle challenges the revocation of his supervised release, 

arguing that the district court violated a number of his statutory and 

constitutional rights during four informal show-cause hearings. But because 

the exhibits and testimony presented at the formal revocation hearing 

provided sufficient evidence from which the district court could conclude 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950

2

Doyle violated the conditions of his supervision, any errors during the showcause hearings were harmless. We therefore affirm.

I

Doyle pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the theft of firearms from 

a federally licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and 

924(i)(1). The district court sentenced him to five years of probation and 

ordered him to pay $13,940.11 in restitution, with interest.

During Doyle’s second year on probation, the district court 

conducted a show-cause hearing that was attended by Doyle, Doyle’s 

mother, an Assistant United States Attorney, and two probation officers. 

The court noted that Doyle had not made a restitution payment in several 

months and that he was $1,300 in arrears. The court warned Doyle that his 

probation officer could move to revoke Doyle’s probation if he failed to 

comply with the conditions of his probation and the court’s orders.

Two months after that show-cause hearing, the probation officer 

moved to revoke Doyle’s probation. The district court granted the motion

and sentenced Doyle to nine months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. Ten months later, after Doyle had served that term of 

imprisonment, the district court revoked Doyle’s supervised release and 

sentenced him to an additional nine months of imprisonment and eighteen 

months of supervised release. Doyle did not appeal these revocation 

judgments.

Over the following two years, the district court conducted three more 

show-cause hearings, all of which were attended by Doyle, two probation 

officers, and an Assistant United States Attorney.

At the first of these hearings, the district court suggested that Doyle 

reside at a halfway house and “earn a good income” in order to pay 

Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950

3

restitution before his supervision ended. The court asked Doyle if he would 

be “willing to modify the terms” of his supervised release and report to a

halfway house. Doyle responded, “Anything to keep from getting 

incarcerated, Your Honor.” A week later, Doyle’s probation officer moved

to modify Doyle’s conditions of supervision, alleging that Doyle had (1) used 

a controlled substance and (2) failed to provide financial documentation. 

The petition proposed that Doyle reside at a halfway house for six months 

and pay 70% of his income toward restitution. Doyle waived his rights to a 

hearing and to assistance of counsel and agreed to the proposed modification. 

The district court granted the petition.

At the second of these show-cause hearings, the court questioned

Doyle about his employment while at the halfway house. The district court 

ordered Doyle to continue contributing 70% of his income toward restitution 

while he was living at the halfway house; submit monthly cashflow 

statements to probation; and appear for an additional show-cause hearing 

unless he complied with the district court’s orders and the conditions of his 

supervision. Doyle finished his time at the halfway house in March 2021, and 

he informed his probation officer that he could pay $300 per month toward 

his restitution.

At the last of these show-cause hearings, the district court again 

focused on Doyle’s restitution obligation, explaining that he was $450 in 

arrears. The court ordered Doyle to pay the $450 and continue to pay $300 

per month toward restitution.

Two months after the last show-cause hearing, Doyle’s probation 

officer moved to revoke Doyle’s supervised release. The amended petition 

for revocation alleged four violations: (1) use of a controlled substance, 

(2) failure to provide financial documentation, (3) failure to pay restitution,

and (4) failure to follow instructions from the probation officer.

Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950

4

The district court held a formal revocation hearing and appointed 

counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2). Doyle 

denied the alleged violations. The Government called as witnesses two of 

Doyle’s probation officers, who testified about Doyle’s positive urinalysis 

report, his failure to complete and submit the required financial 

documentation, his failure to pay restitution, and his failure to follow the 

officers’ instructions. The Government introduced Doyle’s incomplete 

cashflow statements, as well as Doyle’s positive urinalysis report, which was 

signed by Doyle and stated, “I admit use of a controlled substance as 

indicated by the above-reported urine test result.”

After hearing the testimony and evidence, the district court revoked 

Doyle’s supervised release and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment 

and twelve months of supervised release. Doyle timely appealed the order of 

revocation.

II

“We review a decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion, but 

we review issues of constitutional law de novo.”1

 “A district court may 

revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the 

evidence that a condition of release has been violated.”2 We apply the 

harmless-error rule to revocation judgments, disregarding “[a]ny error, 

_____________________

1 United States v. Locke, 482 F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir. 2007) (first citing United States 

v. King, 990 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1993); and then citing United States v. Grandlund, 71 

F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995)); see also United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220, 231-32 (5th 

Cir. 2009) (“While revocation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, the legal and 

constitutional bases of the challenges thereto are reviewed de novo.”).

2 United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3) (providing that release may be revoked if the court finds that “the defendant 

violated a condition of supervised release” (emphasis added)).

Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950

5

defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights.”3 

“Where there is an adequate basis for the district court’s discretionary action 

of revoking probation, the reviewing court need not decide a claim of error as 

to other grounds that had been advanced as a cause for revocation.”4

First, Doyle argues that the show-cause hearings violated his statutory 

and constitutional rights. Regardless of what occurred at the show-cause 

hearings, the testimony and evidence presented at the formal revocation 

hearing justified the district court’s ultimate revocation judgment. The proof 

of Doyle’s failure to submit financial documentation, the positive urinalysis 

report, and the probation officers’ testimony together provide sufficient 

evidence from which the district court could conclude that Doyle violated the 

conditions of his supervised release. “[E]ven if there were deficiencies in the 

show-cause hearings, such errors were harmless with respect to the court’s 

ultimate decision to revoke [Doyle’s] supervised release.”5

Second, Doyle raises procedural and substantive challenges to the 

modifications made to the conditions of his supervision before this revocation 

judgment. Doyle did not appeal those modifications, and they have since 

lapsed. “[T]here is nothing for us to remedy;”6 we decline to address these 

challenges.

_____________________

3 Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); see United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260, 262 (5th 

Cir. 2016); United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 332 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. 

English, 400 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2005).

4 United States v. Turner, 741 F.2d 696, 698 (5th Cir. 1984); see also McCormick, 54 

F.3d at 219 (extending Turner to review of supervised release revocation).

5 See United States v. Sensing, No. 21-60662, 2023 WL 167201, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 

12, 2023) (unpublished) (per curiam).

6 See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998).

Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950

6

Last, Doyle argues that the district court erred by failing to rule on his 

request to waive restitution interest. Because Doyle’s request to waive 

interest was part of his motion to dismiss the amended petition for 

revocation, the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss also denied 

that request. The district court did not fail to rule on his request.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order 

revoking Doyle’s supervised release.

Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/08/2023