FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 13, 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- 13631 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -002 00 -C R -C B -1 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 E R V I N B E RN A R D E A R L , 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 So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 13, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E rvi n B e rna r d E a r l appe a l s hi s 24- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rthe2

r e v o c a tio n o f

h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . E a r l a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g h e v io la te d th e te rm s o f h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e b e c au s e it la c k e d c r e d ib le e vi de nc e t o s uppor ti t s f i ndi ng tha the s hotE ddi e S a va ge . E a r l a l s o a r gue s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e b y f a ilin g to c o n s id e rth e 1 8 U .S .C § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c t o r s . Af

t e rr e v i e wi n g th e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u m e n t s a n d th e r e c o r d , we a f f irm . I . B a c kgr ound O n F eb ru ary 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , E arl b eg an serv i n g th ree years o f su p erv i sed rel ease f orac onvi c t i on f

orpos s e s s i on of

a n unr e gi s t e r e d f

i r e a rm . A m ong othe rthi ngs , the c ondi t i ons of

hi s r e l e a s e i nc l ude d tha the ne i the r( 1) c om m i ta nothe rc r i m e , ( 2) i l l e ga l l ypos s e s s ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , nor( 3) pos s e s s af i r e a rm . O n M a y 24, 20 06 , hi s probat i on offi ce r f i l ed a pet i t i on t o revok e E ar l ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se , a l l e gi ng the vi ol a t i on of s e ve n c ondi t i ons . F ol l ow i ng ar e voc a t i on he a r i ng, the di stri ctcourtfoun d b y a n “ ov erw hel m i ng prepon dera nce” thatE ar l had v i ol at ed the cond i t i on s of hi s r el ea se by shoo t i ng S avage and t es t i ng po si t i ve for narc ot i cs an d al co h o l . T h e d i stri ctco u rtn o t ed th atth e st atu t o ry m ax i m u m w as 2 4 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd the gui de l i ne r a nge w a s 12 t o 18 m onths . T he gove rnm e nt r e que s t e d the s t a tut ory m a xi m um , a r gui ng tha tE ar l s hotS a va ge i n r e t a l i a t i on, c au s e d b o d ily in

ju ry , a n d v io la te d a ll th e c o n d itio n s a lle g e d in p r o b a tio n ’s p e titio n .3

E a r l o f f e r e d n o s p e c if

ic o b je c tio n s , h e o n ly s u b m itte d th a t “w e r e s p e c tf u lly di sa gree . ” C ou nsel ho w everdi d att ac k S avage’ s c re di bi l i ty a nd ar gu e f or a se nt ence w i thi n the gu i del i nes. T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thata gui del i ne se nt ence w as i n su ffi ci en tan d sen t en ced E arl t o th e st atu t o ry m ax i m u m , 2 4 m o n th s. II . S t andards of R evi ew

“ A di stri ctcourt ' s r evocat i on of supervi se d rel ea se i s r evi ew ed un der a n abuse of di sc re t i on st andard. ” U ni ted Stat es v. Frazi er , 26 F . 3d 11 0, 11 2 (11 th C i r. 1994) . H ow e ve r , w e r e vi e w f orpl a i n e rr orthos e i s s ue s i n w hi c h t i m e l y obj e c t i ons w e r e n o t m a d e in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. U ni te d State s v . O lano , 507 U . S . 725, 731, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1776, 123 L . E d. 2d 508 ( 1993) . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o exceed the advi soryse nt enci ng ra ng e i n C hapt er7 o f the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. Si lva , 44 3 F . 3d 79 5, 79 8 (11 th C i r. 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W e r e vi e w the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d upon r e voc a t i on of s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . U

ni te d State s v . Sw e e t i ng , 437 F . 3d 1105, 11 06 -07 (11 th C i r. 20 06 )( per c uri am ). I I I . D i s c us s i on E arl arg u es th atth e g o v ern m en tfai l ed t o p ro v e h i s v i o l at i o n o f rel ease cond i t i on s by aprepon dera nce of evi dence. U nd er18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) , the court m a y r e voke s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e i f the c our t“ f

i nds by apr e ponde r a nc e of the4

e vi de nc e tha tthe de f

e nda ntvi ol a t e d ac ondi t i on of [ hi s ] s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . ” 18 U . S . C . § 3583( e ) ( 3) . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tE a r l vi ol a t e d hi s c ondi t i ons by sh o o t i n g S av ag e an d u si n g i l l i ci td ru g s. T h e d i stri ctco u rth eard th ree w i tn esses, i n cl u d i n g S av ag e, l i n kE arl t o S av ag e’ s sh o o t i n g . E arl n o w arg u es th ato n e w i tn ess pres ent ed un re l i abl e hea rs ay , ho w everhe di d n otobj ec ton thi s bas i s a tthe di stri ct co u rt . A l th o u g h th e F ed eral R u l es o f E v i d en ce d o n o tap p l y i n su p erv i sed rel ease rev o cat i o n p ro ceed i n g s, d efen d an t s are en t i t l ed t o cert ai n m i n i m al d u e p ro cess r e q u ir e m e n ts , in c lu d in g th e r ig h t to c o n f r o n t a n d c r o s s - e x a m in e a d v e r s e w itn e s s e s . Frazi er , 26 F . 3d a t114. T o a dm i the a r s a y , the di s tr i c tc our tm us te nga ge i n a b a la n c in g te s t, a n d f

in d th a t th e h e a r s a y is r e liab le . I d. In the pres entca se , even a s s u m in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y a d m ittin g h e a r s a y , s u c h a n e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s . T h e g o v er n m en t p ro d u ce d tw o o th erw itn es se s th at li n k ed E ar l t o S av ag e’s sh o o t i n g . F u rth erm o re, th e g o v ern m en tal so p resen t ed u n co n t est ed u ri n al ysi s t est resu l t s t o d em o n strat e E arl ’ s rep eat ed u se o f n arco t i cs i n v i o l at i o n o f h i s rel ease c ondi t i ons , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tc oul d r e voke E a r l ’ s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e f or vi ol a t i ng a ny one c ondi t i on. T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by re vo ki ng E ar l ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se . N ex t , E arl arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s sen t en ce w as u n reaso n ab l e b ecau se i tfa i l ed t o con si der the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. H e f urther a rgues thatthe re cord5

d e m o n s tr a te s as e n te n c e o u ts id e th e g u id e lin e r a n g e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . R e a s onabl e ne s s r e vi e w i s de f e r e nt i a l , a nd E a r l be a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng the s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f b o th th e r e c o r d a n d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . See U ni ted Stat es v. T

al ley , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W hi l e the d i stri ctw as req u i red t o co n si d er th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors, i ti s n o treq u i red t o d i scu ss th e m o n th e r e c o r d . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . Sc o tt, 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id s ta te th a t it c o n s id e r e d th e g u id e lin e r a n g e in a d e q u a te t o i m p o se p u n i sh m en tb ecau se o f th e “ d eg ree o f d an g er an dri ski n v o l v ed . ” Ital so di s c us s e d the na tur e of

the vi ol a t i on, a nd s t a t e d the c orr e c tgui de l i ne r a nge a nd s t a tut ory m a xi m um . I n a ddi t i on, i the a r d the gove rnm e nta r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng the seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se. S o al th o u g h th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tex p l i ci t l y d i scu ss e a c h f a c to r , th e r e c o r d d o e s d e m o n s tr a te ac o n s id e r a tio n o f th e m . F ur the rm or e , “ [ w ] e ha ve c ons i s t e nt l y he l d tha tthe pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s of chapt er7 are m er el y a dv i sory . . . ” Si lva , 44 3 F . 3d at79 9. T hese po l i cy s t a t e m e nt s i nc l ude the r e c om m e nde d r a nge s of i m pr i s onm e ntappl i c abl e upon r e v o c a tio n . See U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 4. “ Iti s e no ug h thatthere i s s om e i nd i ca t i on that the di stri ctcourtw as aw ar e of a nd consi dere d them . ” U n i ted S ta tes v. A g u i l la rd , 21 7 F . 3d 13 19 , 13 20 (11th C i r. 20 00 )( per c uri am ). H er e the di stri ctcourtst at ed the gui de l i ne r a nge a nd ga ve r e a s ons f orr e j e c t i ng i t . T hus , gi ve n the vi ol e nta nd6

d a n g e r o u s m a n n e rin w h ic h E a r l v io la te d h is r e le a s e a n d th e e v id e n c e o f m u ltip le vi ol a t i ons , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n e xc e e di ng the gui de l i ne r a n g e a n d E a r l h a s f

a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t a2 4 - m o n th s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n revok i ng E ar l ’ s s up ervi se d re l ea se or i n exceedi ng the gu i del i ne ra ng e. F urtherm ore, the di stri ctcourt i mp o s e d ar e a s o n ab l e s e n t e n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.