N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. LORENZO TUC KER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10146

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00025-KJD-C W H-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Ke nt J. Da

wson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 18, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, N.R . SM ITH, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Afte r a jury ve rdic t, Lore nz o Tuc k e r wa s se nte nc e d to 96 m onths of im prisonm e nt a

nd 3 y e ars of supe rvise d re le a se for unla wful posse ssion of a fire arm by a pre viously

c onvic te d fe lon. During his supe rvise d re le a se , the 

# F IL ED
DEC 21 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Probation Dep artm e nt submitte d m ultiplepe titions al le ging tha t Tuc ke r viola

te d the t e rm s of his re le a s e . Following a c onte ste d re v oc ation he aring, thedistric t
c ourt found tha

t Tuc ke r c o m

m itte d a ll of the a lle ge d viola tions, e xc e pt one of the
a lle ge d inc i de nts of c hild a buse , a nd se nte nc e d him

to 18 m onths’ im

prisonm e nt followe d by

18 m o n ths’ supe rvise d re le a se . On a ppe a l, Tuc ke r c la im s tha

t the gove rnm e nt viola

te d his dueproc e ss rights by not providing ade quat e notic e of the ne w c rim e s tha t he c om m itte d while on supe rvise d re le a se . W e re vie w de novo a de fe nda nt’ s c la im of insuffic ie nt notic e in viola

tion of thedue proc e ss rights inc orporate d by Fe d. R . C rim . P. 32.1. Unite d State s v . Hav ie r , 155 F.3d 1090, 1092 (9th C ir. 1998). A dueproc e ss viola tion a t a re voc at ion proc e e ding is a lso subje c t to ha rm le ss e rror a

na ly sis. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . W alk e r , 117 F.3d 417, 420–21 (9th C ir. 1997). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291 a nd 18 U.S.C . § 3742, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1 The gove rnm e n t like ly

provide d Tuc ke r with a de quate notic e of the a lle ge d viola tions. Thepe titions sta

te d the c ha rge d offe nse s— c hild a

b u se and forge ry
— and inc lude d a

de t a ile d de sc ription of the a lle ge d viola tions inc l uding date s a nd loc ations. Unlike

the situa tion in Hav ie r , 155 F.3d a t 1093, on which

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t

ua l a nd proc e dura l history of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . 2Tuc ke r re lie s, he re , the notic e ide ntifie d the spe c ific offe nse s. Se e Unite d State s v . Tham , 884 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th C ir. 1989). M ore ove r, e ve n if the re we re som e de fic ie nc y in the notic e provide d to Tuc ke r, he ha s fa ile d to show a ny pre judic e . Se e W

alk e r , 117 F.3d a

t 420–21 (holding tha

t “ to wa rrant re lie f, W a lke r m

ust show tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by the tria l c ourt’ s e rror” ). At his initia l a ppe a ranc e , the distric t c ourt a ske d Tuc ke r if he unde rstood oneof the c ha rge s a ga inst him

wa s tha t he “ c om m itte d the c rim e of
c hild a buse by be ating [his] son with a

be lt,” to whic h Tuc ke r re sponde d: “ Oka y . I unde rsta nd tha t ’ s the c ha

rge in the pe tition.” As to theforge ry c ha rge , the pe tition
c le arly a lle ge d tha

t Tuc ke r file d a

nd signe d a

n “ Affidavit for Dismissa l” whic h
c onta ine d the purporte d signa ture of his proba

tion offic e r, and the distric t c ourt found tha t Tuc ke r ha d inte nde d to de frau d. At there voc ation he aring, de fe nse
c ounse l wa s a

ble to a rgue tha t t he pe tition fa ile d to a lle ge the spe c ific sta tute s he viola te d with re spe c t to c hild a buse and forge ry . Tuc k e r ha s not e xpla i ne d wha t he would ha ve done diffe re ntly

ha d he re c e i ve d writte n notic e of the spe c ific sta tute s. If the re w a s e rror, it wa s ha rm le ss. The distric t c ourt’ s re voc ation of Tuc ke r’ s supe rvise d re le a se is AFFIRM E D
.

3