FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MAY 1, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-11369 

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 4:94-cr-04057-WS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JYRONE JEREMIAH JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Florida

 ________________________

(May 1, 2012)

Before EDMONDSON, KRAVITCH and FARRIS,*

 Circuit Judges.

*

Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by

designation.
FARRIS, Circuit Judge:

In United States v. Lacey, we said that a defendant “is entitled to ‘a written

statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking’”

probation. 648 F.2d 441, 445 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981) (quoting Morrissey v.

Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S. Ct. 2593 (1972)). We neither ignore nor retreat

from one word of Lacey. We will assume that Lacey’s teaching extends to

revocation of supervised release. Upon the record, Lacey’s requirement was

satisfied.

Johnson was before the court because of a single incident of extreme

domestic violence. The record reflects that a hearing was held to determine the

facts of the incident. Testimony revealed that Johnson battered the victim over the

course of several hours on a Friday night. Johnson stood on her hair so that she

could not lift her head while he punched her, and he kicked her several times. 

When she coughed up blood, Johnson dragged her to a sink so she could clean

herself up. The following Monday, she had a huge bruise on her left arm and

bruises on her chest and neck, her mouth was puffy, and there was a footprint of a

tennis shoe on her chest. On Wednesday, probation officers found bruises all over

both of her arms, including eight bruises on her right arm and a huge bruise on her

left arm, bruising on her collarbone between her breasts, and a bruise on her right

2
thigh. She also told them that her collarbone might be broken. 

Johnson denied the alleged facts in spite of the evidence that the victim, who

had sought permission to leave the halfway house and live with him, was battered

so badly that she sought permission and did return to the halfway house. 

At the hearing, the sole question was whether the single incident of battery

justified termination of supervised release. Johnson was present and represented

by counsel. He neither objected nor did he or his counsel indicate by words or

even body language that any language of the court’s crystal clear holding was less

than fully understood. The court stated after all evidence was concluded, “The

Court has heard testimony yesterday and today and I am satisfied that [the]

violation has been established beyond any doubt in this Court’s mind.” It further

explained, “the Court has carefully considered the statements of all the parties and

the information contained in the violation report. I’ve also had the opportunity to

hear the evidence in this case and observe the witnesses on the stand, including

your own testimony. The court finds that you have violated the terms and

conditions of your supervised release.” Given the simple issue before the district

court, the evidence and the reasons for revoking supervised release were clear. 

Nothing more was required by the United States Constitution. We will not

remand for the trial judge to restate what we (and we suggest all parties concerned)

3
know and understand from the court’s holding. Supervised release was revoked

because of the single incident of domestic violence. 

AFFIRMED.

4