[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-12930

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00178-RH-CAS

TOMMY LEE GAINES, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

CHAIRMAN, FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, 

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(August 14, 2018)

Before MARCUS, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-12930 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 1 of 8 
2

Tommy Lee Gaines, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s denial, without a hearing, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. On 

appeal, he argues that the Florida Parole Commission (“the Commission”) violated 

his due process rights by withholding evidence and failing to hold a hearing on his 

conditional release violation. The district court issued a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”) on the following issue: whether the district court properly denied, 

without a hearing, Gaines’s claim that his waiver of a hearing before the 

Commission was involuntary and that the Commission’s revocation of his 

conditional release without a hearing thus violated the Due Process Clause. We 

conclude that the state habeas court’s determination that Gaines was afforded due 

process was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established 

federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. We

therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Gaines’s § 2254 petition. 

I. STANDARD

In examining the district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition, we review 

questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo and findings of fact 

for clear error. Stewart v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 476 F.3d 1193, 1208 (11th Cir. 

2007). We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing 

for abuse of discretion. McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 

2005).

Case: 17-12930 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 2 of 8 
3

As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 

(“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) prohibits federal courts from granting habeas 

relief on claims previously adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state 

court decision (1) was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, 

clearly established federal law as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, or 

(2) was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 

evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)–(2). In 

habeas proceedings, a determination of a factual issue made by a state court is 

presumed to be correct, and the applicant has the burden of rebutting the 

presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. Id. § 2254(e)(1).

II. BACKGROUND

In 1990, Gaines pled guilty in Florida state court to possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon and possession of cocaine. The Florida state court sentenced 

Gaines to thirty years and ten years imprisonment. On September 1, 2008, Gaines 

was placed on conditional supervised release until June 8, 2020. One condition of 

this release required Gaines to “obey all laws, ordinances, and statutory conditions 

of conditional release.” 

On May 26, 2012, Gaines was arrested after being involved in a physical 

altercation with another man. Deputy Kenneth Roberts of the Putnam County 

Sheriff’s Office responded to the incident and wrote a police report about the 

Case: 17-12930 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 3 of 8 
4

arrest. According to the report, Gaines stated that the other man insulted Gaines’s 

girlfriend and the “next thing he knew they were fighting.” On May 31, 2012, the 

Florida Parole Commission issued a “warrant for retaking of conditional release” 

based on the May 26, 2012 arrest and police report.

On June 6, 2012, Parole Examiner Richard Hughes met with Gaines 

regarding the conditional release violation proceedings. Hughes presented Gaines 

with a Notice of Hearing form, which charged Gaines with “failing to obey all 

laws, ordinances or statutory conditions of Conditional Release, in that on or about 

May 26, 2012, in Putnam County, Florida, he did unlawfully touch, strike, or cause 

bodily harm to [the victim], against the will of said victim.” Hughes also presented 

Gaines with a Notice of Rights form, which informed Gaines that he had the 

following rights: the right to appear and speak on his own behalf at a release 

violation hearing; the right to present evidence on his own behalf, including the 

right to obtain witnesses; the right to examine evidence to be used against him and 

to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses at the violation hearing; the right 

to be represented by counsel; and the right to receive fourteen days advance notice 

of the hearing. Gaines initialed the form next to the following provision: “I hereby 

freely and voluntarily waive my right to said violation hearing.” 

Gaines also signed a separate Waiver of Conditional Release Violation 

Hearing form. By signing the waiver, Gaines acknowledged that his rights had 

Case: 17-12930 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 4 of 8 
5

been explained to him and that he understood them. He acknowledged that he was 

“waiving the requirement for the Commission to conduct a violation hearing 

regarding [his] alleged violations” and that he understood he may be found guilty 

of the charges regardless of whether such charges resulted in a conviction. Gaines

acknowledged that he was given a Withdrawal of Voluntary Waiver form, 

allowing him to withdraw his waiver of the violation hearing within fourteen days.

Gaines further acknowledged that “no promises, threats or inducements” were 

made to him to cause him to sign the form.

On June 10, 2012, Gaines sent a letter to the Commission, admitting that he 

did get into a fight with a man who insulted his girlfriend, saying he was sorry, and 

asking the Commission to reinstate his conditional release. On July 11, 2012, the 

Commission issued an order revoking Gaines’s conditional release. The 

Commission primarily relied on Deputy Roberts’s police report of the incident.

Gaines filed a petition for habeas corpus in state court, arguing in part that 

the Commission violated his due process rights by revoking his conditional release 

without a hearing. Specifically, he claimed that his waiver was involuntary 

because: (1) he signed the waiver in reliance on Hughes’s assurance that his 

conditional release would be reinstated due to the fact that he was only charged 

with a misdemeanor, and (2) he was not given a copy of Deputy Roberts’s police 

report before he signed the waiver forms. The state court denied the petition, 

Case: 17-12930 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 5 of 8 
6

finding that Gaines voluntarily waived his right to a conditional release violation 

hearing. The Florida court of appeals affirmed. Gaines then filed the present 

§ 2254 petition in federal district court, arguing that the Commission violated his 

due process rights by revoking his conditional release without a hearing. 

III.DISCUSSION

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution provides that “[n]o state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, 

or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In 

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972), the 

Supreme Court outlined the due process requirements for parole revocation 

hearings. Id. at 485–89, 92 S. Ct. 2602–05. While the “full panoply of rights due a 

defendant” in criminal proceedings “does not apply to parole revocations,” the 

Supreme Court held that there are certain “minimum requirements of due process” 

for revocation proceedings, including:

(a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to 

the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in 

person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the 

right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the 

hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing 

confrontation); (e) a ‘neutral and detached’ hearing body such as a 

traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial 

officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to 

the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.

Id. at 480, 489, 92 S. Ct. at 2600, 2604 (quotations omitted).

Case: 17-12930 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 6 of 8 
7

The district court did not err in denying Gaines’s habeas petition. First, the 

state habeas court reasonably found that Gaines voluntarily waived his right to a 

hearing. By initialing the Notice of Rights form and signing the Waiver of 

Conditional Release Hearing form, Gaines acknowledged that he understood his 

rights, that no promises, threats, or inducements caused him to sign, and that he 

freely chose to waive his right to a hearing. Additionally, the state habeas court

considered the declaration of Parole Examiner Hughes, which the Commission 

offered in opposition to Gaines’s claim that his waiver was involuntary. Hughes 

states that Gaines elected to waive his right to a hearing after Hughes explained to 

him the consequences of doing so. Hughes declares that Gaines’s claim that 

Hughes informed him that his conditional release would be reinstated is 

“absolutely false.” Gaines offers no evidence to the contrary. Given this record, the 

state habeas court reasonably found that Gaines’s waiver was voluntary.

The state habeas court also reasonably concluded that the Commission 

complied with the minimum due process requirements for revocation proceedings. 

The Commission, through parole examiner Hughes, provided Gaines with written 

notice of his parole violation as well as his rights to have evidence disclosed to him 

and to appear at a parole violation hearing. The record supports the state habeas 

court’s conclusion that Gaines voluntarily waived those rights. Gaines does not 

offer any evidence to support his claim that he requested and was denied a copy of 

Case: 17-12930 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 7 of 8 
8

Deputy Roberts’s police report before July 11, 2012, when the Commission 

revoked his conditional release. Given that Gaines was advised of his right to have 

evidence disclosed and freely chose to waive his right to a hearing without 

requesting said evidence, the state court’s conclusion that Gaines was afforded due 

process is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established 

federal law. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 490, 92 S. Ct. at 2604 (“We have no 

thought to create an inflexible structure for parole revocation procedures.”).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an 

evidentiary hearing regarding Gaines’s § 2254 petition. When a state court has 

adjudicated the claim presented by the petitioner, an evidentiary hearing may only 

be granted if the federal court concludes that the state court unreasonably applied 

clearly established federal law or made an unreasonable determination of fact. 

Landers v. Warden, 776 F.3d 1288, 1294–95 (11th Cir. 2015). Here, the district 

court correctly concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary because 

the state habeas court did not unreasonably apply federal law or make 

unreasonable findings of fact.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 17-12930 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 8 of 8