FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 2, 2007 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- 14812 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 0 8 - C R - 2 - C L S - HG D 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 T I T U S C O N N A L L Y , 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 o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ay 2, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T i tus C on nal l y app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s r evocat i on of hi s s up ervi se dThis Court ordinarily reviews a district cour

t’s revoc ation of super

vised rele ase f

or 1 abuse of discretion. See United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 ( 11th Cir. 1994). However, when a def

endant f ails to raise a

n issue in the district court, this Court reviews f or p l ai nerro r. S eeUn i t edS tat es v . S h el t o n , 4 0 0 F. 3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 8 -2 9 (1 1 thC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Al th o ugh Connally did no t makethi s argument in th edis tric t c ourt , w ec on c ludethat, even under t hea bu se of dis c retio n s tandard , Conn ally ’sargument f ails . 2 r e l e a s e . A f

t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. C onna l l y w a s c onvi c t e d of c ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne , pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne , a nd us e of af i r e a rm i n f

urthe r a nc e of

adrug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 6 and 84 1(a) (1). H e w as se nt ence d t o 1 97 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , fol l ow ed by fi ve ye ar s of s up ervi se d re l ea se . C on nal l y does notdi sput e thathe vi ol at ed the cond i t i on s of hi s s up ervi se d r e le a s e , b u t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in r e v o k in g h is s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e be c aus e hi s vi ol a t i ons w e r e ha rm l e s s a nd m i t i ga t e d by ci rcu m st an ces. 1 T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t C o n n a lly v io la te d th e c o n d itio n s o f h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e b y , in te ra lia , le a v in g th e ju r is d ic tio n o n th r e e s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s w ith o u t p e rm is s io n , f a ilin g to r e p o rt to h is p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r , f a ilin g to fol l ow the i nstruct i on s of hi s probat i on offi ce r, l yi ng t o h i s probat i on offi ce r, f a i l i ng t o pr oduc e s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

e m pl oy m e nt , a nd a s s oc i a t i ng w i th a conv i ct ed fe l on w i tho utperm i ss i on . T he di stri ctcourtno t ed thatal tho ug h n o o ther vi ol a t i on “ tha n the tr a ve l i ng out s i de the N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof A l aba m aw i thoutAlthough H olland is a probation revocation ca se, probation and supervised relea se are 2 conceptually

the same, a

nd this Court treats revocations the same whether they involve probation or super vised rele ase. SeeUnited States v. Frazier, 26 F .3d 110, 113 (11th Cir. 1994). 3 pe rm i s s i on i s pa rt i c ul a r l y da m ni ng, ” be c aus e of “ the num e r os i ty of

the m , a nd the e xt e ntof [ C onna l l y ’ s ] c ont i nue d obs truc t i on of j us t i c e i n f

a i l i ng t o be truthf

ul w h en re sp o n d in g to th e q u es ti o n s o f [ th e] p ro b atio n o ff icer s,” C o n n ally’s s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e s ta tu s s h o u ld b e r e v o k e d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d C o n n a lly to tw e lv e m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. C o n tr a ry to C o n n a lly ’s c la im s , ac r im in a l a c t is n o t ap r e r e q u is ite to r e voc a t i on of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3583( e ) ( 3) ( author i z i ng r e v o c a tio n o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e f

o rv io la tio n s o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e c o n d itio n s ) . O n c e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a s d e te rm in e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t c o m m itte d av io la tio n , it “s h o u ld c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e [ d e f e n d a n t] m a d e a‘g o o d f

a ith ’ e f f o rt to c o m p ly w i th the [ c ondi t i ons of

hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e ] a nd w he the rthe r e a r e m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h e xc us e hi s nonc om pl i a nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ol l a nd, 874 F . 2d 14 70 , 14 73 (11th C i r. 19 89 ). T he di stri ctcourtm ustexpl ai n i t s f i nd i ng s a s 2 to th e e v id e n c e it r e lie s o n a n d th e r e a s o n s f o rr e v o k in g th e s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C op el and, 20 F . 3d 41 2, 41 4 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( concl ud i ng that a n or a l s t a t e m e nt , r e c or de d a nd tr a ns c r i be d, s a t i s f i e s M orr i s s e y v. B r e w e r , 408 U . S . 47 1, 92 S . C t . 25 93 (197 2), w hi ch re qu i re s aw ri tt en st at em entof fi nd i ng s) .4

H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a d e q u a te ly s e t f o rth th e e v id e n c e it r e lie d o n a n d its r e a s o n s f o rth e d e c is io n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e v ie w e d th e m a te r ia ls r e la tin g to C onna l l y ’ s unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on a nd the e vi de nc e of f e r e d a tthe r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, i nc l udi ng the t e s t i m ony of s pe c i f i c w i tne s s e s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtf ound tha tC onna l l y c om m i tt e d m ul t i pl e vi ol a t i ons a nd tha thi s e xpl a na t i ons f orthe v io lati o n s w er e n o t cre d ib le. T h e d istrict co u rt’s re v o ca ti o n o f C o n n ally’s s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e d id n o t a m o u n t to a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n , m u c h le s s p la in e rr o r . AF F I RME D.