T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e8,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 1331 v. ( D . C ol or ado) M EL VI N J ERR OD TOLI VER,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 9 7 - CR - 3 8 8 - N)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

M el vi n J err od T ol i verappea l s t he r evoca t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e and t he i m pos i t i on of a pr i s on s ent ence forvi ol at i ng the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. W e affi r m t he r evoca t i on butr emand forr es ent enci ng.T hese t w o v i olat i on s apparentl yrel at ed to C olor ado st at e l aw i nfract i on s. 1 -2- BA CKGROUND I n M ar ch 1998, T ol i verpl ed gui l tyt o one countof bank f r aud. H e w as s ent ence d t o t w enty - s even mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. H e w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on and comm ence d hi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e i n M ay2000. H i s s upervi s ed r el eas e w as r evoked i n D ece m ber 2003 w hen he a dm i t t ed tw o vi ol at i ons of hi s condi t i ons of r el eas e. T he di s tr i ct 1 cour ti m pos ed the hi ghes ts ent ence avai l abl e undert he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, G ui del i nes M anual ( “U SSG ”) , four t een mont hs , and i m pos ed anothert hr ee- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T ol i verw as r el eas ed t o comm ence s ervi ng hi s new t hr ee- y eart erm of su p e rv ise d re lea se o n O c to b e r 5 , 2 0 0 4 . A lth o u g h h e w a s re q u ire d to re p o rt in per s on t o hi s pr obat i on offi cerw i thi n s eventy - tw o hour s of hi s r el eas e, T ol i ver di d noti n fac tr eportunt i l O ct ober26, 2004. O n M ar ch 1, 2005, T ol i verw as ev ict ed fro m h is r esid en ce an d b ec am e h o m eless. O n M arc h 7 , 2 0 0 5 , T o li v er’s pr obat i on offi cers oughta w arr antforT ol i ver ’ s arr es t , al l egi ng s i x vi ol at i ons of hi s condi t i ons of r el eas e: ( 1) fai l ur e t o r eportt o the pr obat i on offi ceras di r ect ed; ( 2) fai l ur e t o fol l ow t he i ns t ruct i ons of the pr obat i on offi cer ; ( 3) fai l ur e t o not i fy the p rob ati o n o fficer o f a ch an g e in re side n ce ; ( 4 ) fa il u re to rep o rt arr es t/ ques t i oni ng byl aw enfor cementoffi cer s ; ( 5) fai l ur e t o oper at e a t ow t ruck w i t h a val i d l i cens e and PU C perm i t ; and ( 6) fai l ur e t o r eportt o the pr obat i onT he part i es att i m es us e the w or d “depa r t ” and “ departur e” t o des cr i be the 2 cour t ’ s s ent ence i n t hi s cas e. A s w e not ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. Sanchez - J uar ez, 446 F. 3d 1109, 1113 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) , s om e ci r cui t s have he l d thatt he conc eptof “ d e p a r tu r e s ” f

r o m Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e s h a s b e c o me o b s o l e t e s i n c e t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , r ender ed the G u id e lin e s a d v iso ry . O u r c irc u it stil l u se s “ d e p a rtu re ” ter m in o lo g yin c e rta in c ir c u m s ta n c e s , b u t n o t w ith th e s a m e v ita lity a n d fo rc e th a t it h a d p re -B o o k e r. O urdeci s i on i n t hi s cas e i s noti nfl uence d byhow t he t erm i s us ed ordefi ned. -3- offi ce i n per s on w i t hi n s eventy - t w o hour s of r el eas e fr om cus t odyof the B ur eau of P ri sons. T ol i verw as arr es t ed and a ppear ed befor e a magi s tr at e j udge, w ho d ism issed fo r i n su ffici en t evid en ce all eg ed v iolati o n s (1), (2) an d (5). T h e c o u rt t hen hel d a hea r i ng on t he r emai ni ng al l egat i ons and found Tol i vernotl i abl e for all eg ed v iolati o n (4), bu t fo u n d h im g u il tyo f v iolati o n s (3) a n d (6). A ft erfi ndi ng t hatT ol i verhad vi ol at ed thos e tw o t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed re lea se , the c o u rt re v o k e d T o liv e r’s su p e rv ise d re lea se a n d se n ten c e d h im to tw en ty -tw o m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. In d o ing so , itn o ted th at th e a d v isory G ui del i nes r ange w as ei ghtt o four t een mont hs . B uti tdeci ded t o “i m pos e a nonG ui del i ne s ent ence , ” cons i s t entw i th the governm ent ’ s r eques tatt he hea r i ng, of 2 t w enty - t w o m ont hs beca us e the courthad cons i der ed “the natur e and ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e and the hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defendant , ” as w e ll as th e sta tu to ryp u rp o se s o f se n ten c in g , inc lu d in g “ m o st im p o rta n tlyin th is cas e, t he nee d fort he s ent ence i m pos ed t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es o f t h e d e fe n d a n t . An d t o a ffo r d a d e q u a t e d e t e rr e n c e . ” Tr . o f Hr ’ g a t4 3 - 4 4 , R.-4-

V ol . I I I . T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o not ed thatT ol i verhad pr evi ous l yvi ol at ed the condi t i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, and thatT ol i ver ’ s act i ons s ugges t ed he ha d l earned nothi ng fr om hi s “verys er i ous ” cr i m i nal hi s t ory . I d. at44. T ol i verappea l s t he r evoca t i on and s ent ence , ar gui ng ( 1) perm i t t i ng the pr obat i on offi ce t o “r es ur r ect ” cha r ge 6— fai l ur e t o r eportt o the pr obat i on offi ce w ith in se v e n ty -tw o h o u rs o f h is re lea se f

ro m p riso n — fiv e m o n th s a f ter it happene d vi ol at ed Tol i ver ’ s r i ght s underthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e; ( 2) the di s tr i ct cour ts houl d have di s m i s s ed al l egat i on 3 beca us e Tol i verei thercompl i ed w i th t he n o ti fica ti o n req u ir em en t or i t i s u n co n sti tuti o n all yv ag u e in c ir cu m stan ce s w h ere T ol i verbeca m e homel es s ; and ( 3) the s ent ence i s i nval i d beca us e the courtdr ew i m proper i nferences from t he fa ct s surround i ng T oli ver’ s evi ct i on and used those fac t s as t he bas i s fors ent enci ng T ol i verabove the advi s oryG ui del i ne r ange.

DI S CU S S I ON I . F ai l ure t o R eport In January20 04 , w hen T oli ver w as sent enced t o fo urt een m on ths’ im p riso n m e n t an d th re e y e a rs o f su p e rv ise d re lea se fo r v io latin g th e ter m s o f h is s upervi s ed r el eas e fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence forbank fr aud, one of th e c o n d iti o n s o f

h is th re e -y e a r su p e rv ise d re lea se ter m w a s th a t “[ w ]ith in seventy -tw o h ou rs of h i s r el ease from t he cu st od yof the B ureau o f P ri sons, [T o li v er] sh all rep o rtin p erso n to the p rob ati o n o ffice.” Ju d g m en t at3 , R . V o l. I,-5-

D o c . 5 7 . T o liv e r c o n c e d e s th a t h e v io late d th is c o n d iti o n w h e n h e w a s re lea se d in O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 . H e f

u rth e r c o n c e d e s th a t “n o in p e rso n m e e tin g o c c u rre d u n til O ct ober26, 2004, t hr ee w eeks aft erM r . T ol i ver ’ s r el eas e, and w el l bey ond the 72- hourdeadl i ne. ” A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at4. T he pr obat i on offi ce t ook no act i on att hatt i m e conc erni ng t hi s vi ol at i on. A s i ndi cat ed, T ol i verand hi s fami l yw er e evi ct ed fr om thei rhom e on M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 5 . O n M a rc h 7 , T o liv e r w a s c h a rg e d w ith , inte r a lia, fa ili n g to r epor tt o t he pr obat i on offi ce w i thi n s eventy - tw o hour s of hi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on in O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 . W h ile T o liv e r c o n c e d e s h e v io late d th is c o n d iti o n o f h is su p e rv ise d re lea se , h e a rg u e s th a t th e p ro b a tio n o ffice ’s r e su rre c tio n o f th is charge five m on t hs aft er i t s occurrence viol at es T oli ver’ s D ue P rocess ri gh t s. T o liv e r’s D u e P ro c e ss a rg u m e n t is a leg a l ar g u m e n t w h ich w e w o u ld or di nar i l yr evi ew de novo. T ol i veradmi t s thathe di d notr ai s e thi s ar gum ent bel ow , and thatourr evi ew i s t her efor e forpl ai n err oronl y . “U nderthatdoctr i ne w e w i l l r ever s e the j udgm entbel ow onl yi f ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, w hich ( 3) affect s subst anti al ri gh t s, and w hich ( 4) ser i ou sl yaffects the fa i rness , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed St at es v. T eague , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (fu rth er q u o tat ion o m itted). U n d e r th e G u id e lin e s, th e fa ilu re to re p o rt to th e p ro b a tio n o ffice w ith in s e v e n ty-tw o h o u rs o f

re le a s e is a G ra d e C v io la tio n . U S S G § 7 B 1 .1 (a )( 3 ), p .s . T h e G u id e lin e s f

u rth e r p ro v id e th a t a “ p ro b a tio n o ffice r sh a ll p ro m p tlyre p o rt to-6-

t he courtanyal l eged G r ade C vi ol at i on unl es s the off i cerdet erm i nes : ( 1) that s uch vi ol at i on i s m i nor , and notpartof a c ont i nui ng patt ern of vi ol at i ons . ” I d. §7B 1. 2( b) , p. s . T ol i verar gues t he pr obat i on offi cerevi dent l ydet erm i ned that this w as a m ino r vio lat ion b ec au se h e d id n o thing ab o u t i t ( i. e., h e fail ed to rep o rt i tt o t he court ) att he t i m e. T hen fi ve mont hs l at er , aft erthe pr obat i on offi cer beca m e aw ar e of a ddi t i onal al l eged vi ol at i ons of Tol i ver ’ s condi t i ons of su p erv ised release , the p rob ati o n o fficer d ec ided to se ek rev o ca ti o n o f T o li v er’s s upervi s ed r el eas e on the bas i s of the fa i l ur e- t o- r eport , as w el l as fi ve other al l eged vi ol at i ons . W e per cei ve no due pr oces s vi ol at i on i n thatdeci s i on. A s i ndi cat ed, a pr obat i on offi cer“s hal l pr om pt l yr eport. . . anyal l eged G r ade C vi ol at i on unl es s t he off i cerdet erm i nes . . . [the] vi ol at i on i s m i nor , and n o t p a rt o f

a c o n tin u in g p a ttern o f v io latio n s.” Id . B e c a u se T o liv e r’s fa ilu re to r epor toccurr ed att he comm ence m entof hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, the pr obat i on offi cerevi dent l yadopt ed a “ w ai t - and- s ee” att i tude t o s ee w hethera “c ont i nui ng p a ttern ” o f

v io latio n s e m e rg e d , o r w h e th e r T o liv e r in ste a d re m a in e d in compl i ance w i t h hi s condi t i ons of r el eas e. A l though w e do notencour age the kind of delay ed respon se t o a clearviol at i on of a c on dit i on of sup ervi sed rel ease that o cc u rred h ere , w e d ec li n e to h o ld tha t a pro b ati o n o fficer m ustp ro m p tly r epor teveryvi ol at i on orfor everl os e the r i ghtt o do s o.

“ T h e c o u rts h a v e lo n g a c c o rd e d p ro b a tio n o ffice rs w id e d isc re tio n in det erm i ni ng w hethert o s eek r evoca t i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sham pang, 987 F. 2dT o li v er reli es u p o n U n it ed S tat es v . H am il ton , 7 0 8 F . 2 d 1 4 1 2 (9th C ir . 3 1983) , i n w hi ch a pr obat i onerw ho had vi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of hi s pr obat i on, and h a d in fo rm e d th e c o u rt o f th a t v io latio n , w a s n o t ch a rg e d w ith th a t v io latio n u n til th re e y e a rs la ter . T h e c o u rt h e ld th a t w a s to o lo n g . T h a t ca se is o b v io u sly di s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he i ns t antcas e. W hi l e ther e ar e ca s es w her e an a l l eged vi ol at i on of a t erm of pr obat i on ors upervi s ed r el eas e ca n become s t al e, t hi s i s not s uch a c as e. -7- 1 4 3 9 , 1 4 4 3 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). In d e e d , as in d ica ted , the G u id e lin e s c o n tem p late aw ai t i ng t he deve l opm entof a “ cont i nui ng patt ern of vi ol at i ons . ” W e ca nnots ay t hat the p robat i on offi cer vi olat ed T oli ver’ s const i tuti on al ri gh t s bydo i ng j ust t hat . “A bs entpr ej udi ce, . . . a del aym ot i vat ed bya des i r e t o ut i l i ze the r ehabi l i t at i on pr oces s r athert han aba ndon i tdoes notvi ol at e due pr oces s w hen t he earl i er vi olat i on s ar e charged al on g w i th m ore r ecent ones bec ause col l ect i vel yt heys how t hatt he furtheratt empt atr ehabi l i t at i on had not s ucce eded. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o J ones v. J ohns on, 230 F. 3d 825, 828 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( “[A ] n or i gi nal deci s i on nott o i s s ue a r evoca t i on w arr ant i n r es pons e t o a pr obat i on vi ol at i on m aybe r eas onabl e and i s notm ade unr eas onabl e bya r eeva l uat i on i n l i ghtof addi t i onal vi ol at i ons thatthe p ro b a tio n e r la te r c o m m itte d .” ). T o liv e r h a s d e m o n s tr a te d n o p reju d ic e h e re . 3 T h u s, w e d o n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e d p lain e rro r in d e ter m in in g th a t T o liv e r’s a d m itt e d v io latio n o f th e c o n d iti o n re q u irin g h im to pr om pt l yr epor tt o t he pr obat i on offi ce w arr ant ed the r evoca t i on of hi s r el eas e andW e not e, how ever , t hatt her e ar e tr oubl i ng as pect s t o the pr obat i on 4 o fficer’s co n d u ct i n this case . T o li v er a rgu es th at, b yfa il ing to rep o rtto the co u rt T ol i ver ’ s fai l ur e t o r epor tt o t he pr obat i on offi cerw i thi n s eventy - tw o hour s , t he pr obat i on offi cerevi dent l yfound i tw as a mi norort echni cal vi ol at i on. Y ett he di s t r i ctcour ti t s el f found the fa i l ur e- t o- r eportw as nota mi norvi ol at i on:

T hi s m an has a s er i ous cr i m i nal hi s t ory . A nd i ti s a mat t erof e x tre m e im p o rta n c e th a t h e b e c lo se lysu p e rv ise d . A n d to c lo se ly s upervi s e hi m , t hatm eans he has t o compl yw i th thes e t erm s and c o n d itio n s . Itm e a n s th e re c a n b e n o lo o s e n e s s in s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . H e di dn’ tm ake c ont actw i th hi s pr obat i on offi cereven by t el ephone unt i l t he 26th of O ct ober . T hatw as fi nal l yw hen theygot to g e th e r. N ow , t hati s a per i od of aboutt hr ee w eeks w hen he w as not s u bje c t to s u p e rv is io n . T h is is w h yth is is n o t a te c h n ic a l v io la tio n . It’s n o t a te c h n ica l v io latio n , es p e c iallyfo r so m e b o d yw ith th is cr i m i nal hi s t or y , beca us e i ti s a mat t erof gr eatur gencyt hat s om ebodyw i t h hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orybe s upervi s ed and be s upervi s ed c o n tin u o u s ly an d im m e d ia te ly. T r. o f H r’g a t 34 -35 , R . V o l. III . T h e se ri o u sn ess o f th e fail u re-to-rep o rt v io latio n , o n th e b a sis o f T o liv e r’s c rim in a l h isto ry , w o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p a re n t to the p rob ati o n o fficer, ind ee d to an yo b serv er, atthe tim e o f th at vio lat ion . T h ere w as no need t o w ai tand s ee i f a “ cont i nui ng pat t ern” of vi ol at i ons ens ued. O ur d e c isio n d o e s n o t tu rn , h o w e v e r, o n w h e th e r o r n o t th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly found the i ni t i al fai l ur e- t o- r epor tvi ol at i on w as t echni cal ornot . T he pr obat i on offi cerhad the author i t yt o t ake a “w ai t - and- s ee” appr oach, and det erm i ne t o s eek r evoca t i on of Tol i ver ’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e once he conc l uded thata cont i nui ng pat t ern of vi ol at i ons had occ ur r ed. -8- th e im p o sitio n o f

a p riso n ter m , ev e n th o u g h th e p ro b a tio n o ffice d e layed p u rsu it of thi s vi olat i on for fi ve m on t hs. 4-9-

II. F ail u re to R ep ort C h an ge o f A d d ress A n o th e r c o n d iti o n o f

T o liv e r’s su p e rv ise d re lea se w a s th a t h e n o tifyh is pr obat i on offi cert en day s i n advanc e of a nychange i n hi s addr es s . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt fo u n d th a t h e h a d v io late d th is c o n d iti o n w h e n h e w a s e v icte d f ro m h is hom e and fai l ed t o not i fyhi s pr obat i on offi cerof thi s fac tand fa i l ed t o pr ovi de t he o ffi cer a new con t actadd res s. T oli ver chall eng es this fi nd i ng on t w o b ases: (1 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in fin d in g th a t T o liv e r h a d in fa c t v io late d th is condi t i on; and ( 2) t he condi t i on r equi r i ng not i fi cat i on i s uncons t i tut i onal l yvague w here the p ers on subjectt o the con dit i on beco m es hom el ess. ( 1) V i ol at i on of

condi t i on R e v o c a tio n p ro c e e d in g s a re g o v e rn e d b y1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (e ), w h ich d ire c ts a d istri ct co u rtto co n side r fa ctors se t ou t i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) b efo re d e ter m in in g a p a rticu lar se n ten c e fo r a p a rticu lar d e fe n d a n t. T hos e fa ct or s i ncl ude 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e, 2) t he hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defendant , 3) t he nee d fort he s ent ence t o affor d adequa t e det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct , 4) t he need t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the defendant , 5) t he need t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, or corr ect i onal t r eatm ent , and 6) t he s ent enci ng r ange e s t abl i s hed under t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes ort he pol i cys t at ement s appl i cabl e t o a vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ke l l e y , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 4 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t i n g 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a )). “ If

th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e s b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t a defe ndantvi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e, . . . t he di s tr i ctcourthas-10-

di s cr et i on t o r evoke s upervi s ed r el eas e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ar other s , 337 F. 3d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 1 9 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ing 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 (e)(3) (“T h e [ d istri ct] co u rt m a y. . . rev o k e a ter m o f su p e rv ise d re lea se , an d re q u ire th e d e fe n d a n t to se rv e in p r i s o n a l l o rp a r to f

t h e t e r m o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . . . i f th e c o u r t. . . fi n d s b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatthe defendantvi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. . . . ”) ) . “O n appea l , the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o r evoke supervi sed rel ease based o n it s fi nd i ng of a v i olat i on i s r eview ed o nlyfor abu se of di s cr et i on. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. H amm onds , 370 F. 3d 1032, 1034 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( “W e r evi ew or der s r evoki ng su p e rv ise d re lea se fo r a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n .”). F u rth e r, “a s in o th e r c o n tex ts w her e a di s t r i ctcour thas di s cr et i on t o t ake c er t ai n act i on bas ed on i t s fi ndi ngs of fa c t, th e c o u rt’s s u b sid iar yfa c tfin d in g a s to w h e th e r o r n o t a v io latio n o c c u rre d is r evi ew ed forcl earerr or . ” C ar ot her s , 337 F. 3d at1019 ( i nt ernal quot at i on o m itted). T ol i ver ’ s pr obat i on offi cert es t i fi ed atthe r evoca t i on hear i ng thataft er T o li v er’s ev ict ion fro m h is r esid en ce o n M arc h 1 , 2 0 0 5 , h e “ h ad n o idea w h ere [ T o l i v e r ] wa s u n t i l h i s a r r e s t , M a y4 , 2 0 0 5 . ” T r . o f Hr ’ g a t7 , R. Vo l . I I I . He fur t hert es t i fi ed thatT ol i verl efthi m no “cont acti nform at i on. ” I d. T he off i cer s t at ed he “ had s ever al t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i th [Tol i ver ’ s ] w i fe[ , ] [w ho] w oul d r epea t edl yt el l [the off i certhatT ol i ver ] w as outon a t ow , he w as outon a c a ll, h e w a s u n a v a ilab le, b u t sh e h a d g iv e n h im [ th e o ffice r’s ] m e ss a g e s to c a ll-11-

. . . [a] nd [the off

i cer ] nevers poke w i th M r . T ol i verunt i l he w as arr es t ed on the w a rra n t.” Id . T h e o ffice r f u rth e r te stified th a t, w h ile T o liv e r h a d su b m itt e d h is m o n thlyrep o rtfo r M arc h an d m ad e a resti tuti o n p ay m en t, h is m o n thlyrep o rt cont ai ned an “ i l l egi bl e” w or d underT ol i ver ’ s s tr eetaddr es s . I d. at16. T ol i vert es t i fi ed thatt he evi ct i on came as a “s urpr i s e” t o hi m , al though he had bee n i n a l egal di s agr eementw i th hi s l andl or d “forl i ke fourm onths . ” I d. at 21- 22. H e furt hert es t i fi ed thathe had pos t ed an a ppeal bond, w hi ch he be l i eved w oul d s t ayanyevi ct i on, al t hough he al s o t es t i fi ed thathe knew the evi ct i on “coul d have oc curr ed ats om e poi nti n and ar ound” M ar ch 1. I d. at23. T ol i ver a lso tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t re c a ll effo rts b yh is p ro b a tio n o ffice r to c o n tac t h im a f ter h e w a s e v icte d , an d th a t th e w o rd th e o ffice r te stified w a s illeg ib le o n h is m o n th lyre p o rt w a s m e a n t to sta te “ h o m e les s.” Id . at 2 4 . T o liv e r a rg u e s th a t h is p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e rk n e w h e h a d b e e n e v i c t e d , s o n o t i fi c a t i o n wa s p o i n t l e s s . He t hen ar gues t hat , beca us e he w as hom el es s , he w as unabl e t o not i fyhi s pr obat i on offi cer of anyadd res s. T he di s t r i ctcour tfound thatT ol i ver“knew thathe w as goi ng t o be evi ct ed ort hatt her e w as goi ng t o be s om e ac t i on on orar ound M ar ch 1[, ] [al though] [i ] t ’ s extr emel yuncl earw hatw as happeni ng her e. ” I d. at36. T he courtfur ther found: E v en if [the co u rt ] w ere to ac ce p t th e e x cu se th at [T o li v er] s om ehow di dn’ tknow t en day s i n advanc e thathe w as goi ng t o be e v icte d , the fa c t is, h e d id n ’t m a k e a n ya ttem p t fo r m o n th s to re a lly-12-

keep the pr obat i on offi ceri nform ed of a nychange i n addr es s or w her e he w as ort hathe w as l i vi ng outof hi s caroranythi ng l i ke th a t. T he C our tfi nds on the evi dence that[Tol i ver ] di d fai l t o not i fy th e p ro b a tio n o ffice r o f a c h a n g e in re sid e n c e , if n o t ten d a y s p rio r to t he cha nge i n r es i dence , butthen ce r t ai nl yw i thi n a r eas onabl e per i od of t i m e af

t erw ar ds . [Tol i ver ] nevernot i fi ed the pr obat i on offi cer , and t he pr obat i on offi cerdi dn’ tknow w her e he w as unt i l he w as arr es t ed on M ay4. I d. at37- 38. T he r ecor d s uppor t s t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng thatT ol i vervi ol at ed the condi t i on of hi s r el eas e obl i gat i ng hi m t o i nform hi s pr obat i on offi cerof a c hange of hi s addr es s . A s t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, even i f Tol i verw as unaw ar e thathe w o u ld b e e v icte d ten d a y s in a d v a n c e o f th a t ev ictio n , the c o n d iti o n c lea rly o b lig a ted T o liv e r to n o tifyh is p ro b a tio n o ffice r a f ter th e e v ictio n a n d p ro v id e h im w ith a n a d d re ss w h e re th e p ro b a tio n o ffice r c o u ld c o n tac t T o liv e r. T o liv e r sim p ly fai l ed t o do t hat . T he fa ctt hatt he pr obat i on offi cerl earned of Tol i ver ’ s evi ct i on o n M a rc h 1 is b e sid e th e p o in t. T h e o b v io u s ra tio n a le fo r th e c o n d iti o n is to enabl e the pr obat i on offi cert o r emai n i n t ouch and c ont actw i th hi s pr obat i oner w heneve rt he pr obat i onerchange s addr es s . B ei ng r ender ed homel es s does not absolve a proba t i on er of t his ob l i gati on ; i tsi m plym eans t he p robat i on er m ust in fo rm th e p ro b a tio n o ffic e r o f a n a d d re s s — s u c h a s th e a d d re s s o f a s h e lte r, a str ee t add ress w h ere the p rob ati o n er’s ca r/h o m e is p ark ed reg u larl y , etc.— w h ere t he off i cercan c ont actt he pr obat i oner . T he di s tr i ctcour tdi d noterri n fi ndi ng-13-

t hatT ol i verhad vi ol at ed the condi t i on obl i gat i ng hi m t o not i fyhi s pr obat i on offi cer of a cha ng e of a dd res s. (2) U n con st i tuti on al vagu en ess T o liv e r a rg u e s th e c o n d iti o n re q u irin g n o tific a tio n o f a c h a n g e o f

a d d re ss is uncons t i tut i onal l yvague w hen the pr obat i onerbecomes hom el es s . T ol i verfai l ed t o m ake thi s ar gum entbel ow , s o w e r evi ew i tonl yforpl ai n err or . “U ndert hat d o c trin e w e w ill re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t b e lo w o n lyif th e re is (1 ) e rro r, (2 ) th a t is pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaffect s t he fai r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Teague, 443 F . 3 d at 13 1 4 (fu rth er q u o tat ion o m itted). T ol i verfai l s t o devel op a di s t i nctand s epar at e ar gum enton thi s poi nt , ot her t han t o ar gue thatt he condi t i on of r el eas e s ay s nothi ng abouthom el es s nes s and w h at a p erso n o n su p erv ised release m u st do w h en ren d ere d h o m eless. H o w ev er, a s in d ica ted a b o v e , the ra tio n a le fo r th e c o n d iti o n is o b v io u s. E q u a llyo b v io u s is h o w a h o me l e s s p e r s o n s h o u l d c o mp l ywi th t h e c o n d i t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we per cei ve no pl ai n err ori n t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatT ol i vervi ol at ed t hi s condi t i on of r el eas e fol l ow i ng hi s evi ct i on.

I I I . V al i di t y of

Sent ence T o liv e r a lso c h a llen g e s h is tw e n ty -tw o m o n th se n ten c e , arg u in g th a t “in depart i ng fr om t he pol i cys t at ement s cont ai ned i n the fe der al s ent enci ng-14-

gui del i nes ” and i m pos i ng a s ent ence hi gherthan the r ange pr ovi ded bythe a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s, th e c o u rt im p e rm iss ib ly“ m ix e d v a lid re a so n s w ith in v a lid o n es.” A p p ell an t’ s O p . B r. at 23 . In p arti cu lar, T o li v er a ll eg es th at th e c o u rt i m pr oper l y“extr apol [at ed] and cr i m i nal i z[e d] . . . the fa ct s s ur r oundi ng the ev ict ion as a co n ti n u ati o n o f M r. T o li v er’s p ri o r crim inal ac ti v ity . ” A p p ell an t’ s R epl yB r . at14. T he “i m pos i t i on of a s ent ence i n exce s s of thatr ecomm ended bythe C hapt er7 pol i cys t at ement s of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w i l l be uphel d i f i tcan be det erm i ned fr om t he r ecor d t o have be en r eas oned and r eas onabl e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. T edfor d, 405 F. 3d 1159, 1161 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( fur therquot at i on om i t t ed) . A cl os e ana l y s i s of the r ecor d of the r evoca t i on and s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs i n t hi s cas e r evea l s s om e tr oubl i ng as pect s w hi ch make ourr evi ew on appea l di ffi cul t . I n acc or dance w i th a typi cal pr ocee di ng i nvol vi ng an al l eged vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e, t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a Super vi s ed R el eas e V i ol at i on R epor t( “SR V R ”) . I tnot ed that , pur s uantt o the pol i cys t at ement s i n t he G ui del i nes , w i th a G r ade C vi ol at i on of a c ondi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and w i t h T ol i ver ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I , the advi s or yG ui del i ne i m pr i s onm entr ange w as ei ghtt o four t een mont hs . SR V R at 3, Supp. V ol . I I I . U nder“Fact or s thatM ayW arr antD epartur e” the SR V R s t at ed

“ [ n ]o n e .” Id . B o th p a rties re c e iv e d c o p ies o f th e S R V R a n d w e re p e rm itt e d to-15-

m ake obj ect i ons t her et o. T ol i verdi d notobj ectt o i t . T he SR V R cont ai ned the fo l l o w i n g i n i t s d i s c u s s i o n o f T o l i v e r ’ s s u p e r v i s i o n h i s t o ry: O n D ece m ber8, 2004, [Tol i ver ] r eport ed t o m yoffi ce a nd t ol d m e he wa s r e s i d i n g a t1 9 2 5 S . Ba n n o c k S t . , De n v e rCo l o r a d o 8 0 2 2 3 . On D ece m ber21, 2004, I r es ponded t o thi s r es i dence and l earned that [ T o liv e r] w a s b o th liv in g a n d w o rk in g o u t o f th is lo c a tio n . C onver s at i ons w i t h [Tol i ver ’ s ] l andl or d, J erryPi per , r evea l ed M r. P ip e r h a d n u m e ro u s p ro b lem s w ith [ T o liv e r] p a y in g h is re n t w ith i nsuffi ci ent fund s check s, dam aging t he p roperty , st eal i ng do or l ock s, et c. [Tol i ver ] w as ul t i m at el yevi ct ed fr om thi s r es i dence on M ar ch 1, 2 0 0 5 . I d. at4. T he r ecor d al s o cont ai ns a Sent enci ng R ecomm endat i on fr om the Pr obat i on O ffice , w h ich g o v e rn m e n t co u n se l at o ra l ar g u m e n t re p re se n ted w a s n o t g iv e n to bot h par t i es , butonl yt o t he di s t r i ctcour t . T hi s documentr ecomm ended a sent ence o f t w enty -tw o m on t hs, for the fo l l ow i ng reas on s: [ T o liv e r] h a s c lea rlyd e m o n stra ted th a t h e is n o t am e n a b le to c o n tin u e d c o m m u n ity -b a se d su p e rv is[ io n ]. H e h a s a b u se d h is fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t i es w i th hi s bank, w r i t i ng num er ous i ns uffi ci ent funds chec ks t o i ndi vi dual s and vendor s i n the D enverm etr opol i t an a re a . [T o liv e r] h a s p e n d in g c h a rg e s in A ra p a h o e C o u n tyth a t co u ld r es ul ti n a l engthyper s on t erm . [Tol i ver ] has the abi l i tyt o run a v e rylu c ra tiv e b u sin e ss ; h o w e v e r, h e c h o o se s to g a in p ro sp e rity t hr ough i l l i ci tm eans . H i s cr i m i nal hi s t orycomm ence d near l y22 y ear s ago and i ncl udes num er ous convi ct i ons fortheftr el at ed m at t er s . H e i s vi ew ed as an extr eme r i s k t o the comm uni tyand acc or di ngl y , cont i nued s upervi s i on i s notr ecomm ended. I d. atR - 1. A t sen tenc ing , T o li v er a sk ed fo r a se n tenc e a t th e b o tt o m o f th e a d v isory G ui del i ne r ange of

ei ghtt o four t een mont hs , and the governm ents oughtanL at eri n t he pr ocee di ng, t he governm enti ndi cat ed i ts oughta s ent ence of 5 t w enty - t w o m ont hs . T r . of H r ’ g at43, R . V ol . I I I . W hethert he governm ent ask ed fo r tw en ty -tw o o r tw en ty -fo u r m o n ths, bo th are ab o v e the ad v isory G ui del i ne r ange. -16- u p w a r d “ d e p a r tu r e ” t o t w e n t y- fo u rm o n th s , “ b a s e d o n [ T o l i v e r ] ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, as w el l as hi s s econd tr yon s upervi s ed r el eas e, w hi ch fa i l ed. ” Tr. of H r ’ g at40, R . V o l. III. T h e c o u rt th e n “ im p o se [ d ] a n o n -G u id e lin e se n ten c e ” in

5 cons i der at i on of “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of thi s cas e[, ] . . . t he hi s t or yand char act er i s t i cs of the defendant [, ] . . . t he ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e and the appl i cabl e Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes s peci fy i ng a t erm of 8 t o 14 m onths . ” Id . at 4 3 -4 4 . T h e c o u rt e x p lain e d its tw e n ty -tw o m o n th se n ten c e a s “ n e c e ss a ryto achi eve the s t atut or ypurpos es of . . . m os ti m por t ant l yi n thi s cas e, t he nee d for th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d to p ro te c t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rt h e r c ri m e s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t. A nd t o affor d adequa t e det err ence . ” I d. at44. T he courtfurtherobs erved that T ol i verhad pr evi ous l yvi ol at ed the condi t i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e and that he had a “verys er i ous cr i m i nal hi s t ory . ” I d. T ol i verbas es hi s ar gum enton the fo ll o w ing stat em en t bythe c o u rt : T o li v er’s “c u rren t acti v it ies su g g est h e’s l earned n othi ng from t hat cr i m i nal hi st ory . H i s cr i m i nal hi st orycon si st s atl east i n par tof i ns uffi ci entfund che cks , t heftbychec k, and s i m i l arvi ol at i ons , and he cont i nues t o do t hat , gi vi ng hi s l andl or d i ns uffi ci entfund che cks . ” I d. T hus , t he cour ti ncl uded expl i ci t l yas a r eas on fort he s ent ence above the G ui del i ne r ange t he fa ctt hatT ol i verhad gi ven hi s l andl or d “i ns uffi ci entfund che cks . ” Y et , as-17-

T ol i verpoi nt s out , ot hert han the bar e s t at ementi n the SR V R , ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d s uppor t i ng thatal l egat i on, noranyevi dence thatthatw as t he r eas on forT ol i ver ’ s evi ct i on. M or e tr oubl i ng, how ever , i s the unexpl ai ned di s cr epanc ybetw een the affirm ati v e statem en t i n the S R V R , w h ich T o li v er h ad rec eive d , that there w ere n o r e a s o n s fo ra s e n t e n c e h i g h e rth a n th e Gu i d e l i n e r a n g e , a n d th e twe n ty - two m ont h above- G ui del i ne r ecomm endat i on i n the Sent enci ng R ecomm endat i on, w h ich T o li v er a p p are n tl yd id n o t see. W e h av e re ce n tl yh eld th at a d istri ct co u rt m u s t g iv e th e p a rt ie s n o tic e o f its in te n t to im p o s e a n u p w a rd G u id e lin e d e p a rt u re . U n ite d S ta te s v . C a lz a d a -M a ra v illa s , 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 3 0 1 , 1 3 0 3 -0 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W hi l e w e s peci fi cal l ys t at ed thatw e “ne ed notr es ol ve i n thi s cas e w hetherthe n o ti ce req u ir em en t al so ap p li es to n o n -gu ideline d ep artures u n d er the fa ctors listed in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ),” C a lza d a -M a ra v ill a s, 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 5 , an d th is cas e ar guabl yi nvol ves s uch a non- G ui del i ne depa r tur e, nonethel es s w e fi nd t r oubl i ng t he court ’ s deci s i on atthe hea r i ng t o s ent ence T ol i verabove the advi s or yG ui del i ne r ange, bas ed i n par tupon a comm enti n the SR V R w hi ch fi nds no ot hers uppor ti n t he r ecor d. I n part i cul arw e ar e di s turbed bythe di ver gence b e tw e e n th e S R V R a n d th e S e n ten c in g R e c o m m e n d a tio n , g iv e n th e im p licit rep rese n tat ion in the S R V R that there w o u ld b e n o “d ep arture” fro m the a d v isory G ui del i ne r ange. E ven i f the SR V R w as r efe rr i ng t echni cal l yt o a G ui del i ne d ep arture o n ly , the im p li ca ti o n o f th e w o rd “ n o n e” u n d er g rou n d s fo r de p arture-18-

w oul d have be en t aken mor e br oadl ybycouns el . W hi l e the governm ent emphasi zes t hatT ol i verfai l ed t o obj ectt o the SR V R , i ncl udi ng i t s comm ent aboutT ol i vergi vi ng hi s l andl or d bad che cks , T ol i verw oul d have ha d no i ncent i ve t o obj ectt o t hats t at ementbeca us e the SR V R i ndi cat ed thata s ent ence w i t hi n t he advi s or yG ui del i ne r ange w as appr opr i at e and thatther e w er e no gr ounds fora more s ever e s ent ence . See i d. at1306 ( not i ng t hatthe defendant “r el i ed on the r ecomm endat i ons s etfor th i n the PSR [and] [a] s a r es ul t , he had no i ncent i ve t o chal l enge the ci r cumst ance s of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons ordeport at i ons beca us e he ha d no r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe courtw oul d r el yon them t o fur ther incre ase h is sen tenc e” ). I n s um , w e fi nd t he r ecor d of the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs i n thi s cas e t o be s uffi ci ent l ypuzzl i ng and di sj oi nt ed thatw e fi nd i tdi ffi cul tt o r evi ew the s ent ence i m pos ed t o det erm i ne i f i tw as t he pr oductof r eas oned del i ber at i on on an adequa t e r ecor d, w i t h an appr opr i at e opportuni tyforT ol i vert o r ebutthe r eas ons g iv e n fo r th e se n ten c e a b o v e th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e ra n g e . W e a c c o rd in g ly r emand t hi s cas e forr es ent enci ng. W e expr es s no opi ni on on w hatthe s ent ence s houl d be, and thi s opi ni on s houl d notbe r ead a s s t at i ng thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed i s r eas onabl e orunr eas onabl e underthe s t andar ds w e now appl ys i nceW e gr antt he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d. 6 -19- U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . See U ni t ed St at es v. R odr i guezQ ui nt ani l l a, 442 F. 3d 1254, 1258 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ; T edfor d, 405 F. 3d at1161. 6

CO NC L US I ON F o r th e fo reg o ing rea so n s, w e A F F IR M the re v o ca ti o n o f T o li v er’s su p e rv ise d re lea se a n d R E M A N D to th e d istric t co u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to V A C A T E T ol i ver ’ s s ent ence and t o r es ent ence hi m fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge