United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1514

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Kenneth Archambeau, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 8, 1998

 Filed: September 14, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1993, Kenneth Archambeau pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an assault

with a dangerous weapon while carrying a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)

and 2, and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and three years supervised

release. The conditions of supervised release required, among other things, that

Archambeau (1) not commit any federal, state or local crime; (2) follow the instructions

of his probation officer; (3) notify his probation officer within 72 hours of being

arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; and (4) not consume alcoholic

beverages. In November 1997, Archambeau&s probation officer petitioned for

revocation of Archambeau&s supervised release on the ground that Archambeau
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District 1

of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Mark F.

Marshall, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.

-2-

violated these conditions. The district court granted the petition and sentenced

1

Archambeau to 7 months in prison and two years supervised release. On appeal

Archambeau raises two related arguments: (1) the government failed to show by a

preponderance of the evidence that the tribal authorities who arrested Archambeau for

reckless driving and disorderly conduct actually had the authority to do so in light of

South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 118 S. Ct. 789 (1998); and (2) but for the illegal

arrests the government could not have obtained the evidence necessary to revoke

Archambeau&s supervised release.

We reject any suggestion that the district court was precluded from using against

Archambeau the information flowing from his alleged illegal arrests in determining

whether to revoke supervised release. See United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854,

857-58 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that exclusionary rule, absent showing of harassment,

does not apply at revocation-of-supervised-release hearings); cf. United States v.

Fredrickson, 581 F.2d 711, 713 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (exclusionary rule is

inapplicable to federal probation revocation hearings).

Moreover, after considering the evidence as a whole, we are satisfied it was

sufficient to permit the district court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that

Archambeau violated the conditions of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke defendant&s supervised release if court finds by

preponderance of evidence that defendant violated supervised release condition);

United States v. Noland, 960 F.2d 1384, 1390-91 (8th Cir. 1992) (district court&s

factual findings are to be accepted as true unless clearly erroneous with due regard

being given to opportunity of court to judge credibility of witnesses.)
-3-

Archambeau raises several issues pro se, including a contention that he should

have been sentenced by the same judge who originally sentenced him. After careful

consideration, we reject this argument, cf. United States v. Makes Room For Them, 49

F.3d 410, 415 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant need not be sentenced by same judge who

presided at trial of case), as well as the other pro se arguments. We also deny

Archambeau&s motion for appointment of new counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.