FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 10 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :9 6- cr-0 02 08 -SLB-P W G-2
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES NATHAN H OLLAND, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt–Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ch arl es Nath an Hol la ndap pe al s t he rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e fo r

two reas on s. Fi rs t, h e co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctjud ge su a s po nt e sh ou ldha ve recu se d h ers el f fro m

de ci di ng whet he r hi s s up erv is edrel eas e sh ou ldbe rev ok ed . Seco nd , he a rg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt i m pr op erl y sen te nc edhi m

un de r a s ta tu te no t i n e ffec t atth e ti m e o f hi s o ffen se . For t he reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we af firm . I. Hol la ndwas c harg edin 19 97 wit h m ur de r infurth eran ce o f a co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e an d wh il e en ga ge d i n aco ns pi racy to p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o di st rib ut e m or e th an 1,0 00 ki lo gr am s o f m ari juan a an d m or e th an 5 k il og ram s o f co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( b) (1 )(A), 8 48 (e)( 1) (A). In19 98 , he en te redin to a pl ea ag reem en t u nd er wh ic h h e ad m it te d t o a n i nt en ti on al ki ll in g b ut av oi de d t he po ss ib il it y

of t he de ath p en al ty. The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edHol la nd to 18 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t fo ll owe d b y

5 years o f supe rv is edrel eas e. InMarc h 2 01 1, af

te r hi s s up erv is edrel eas e b eg an , Hol la ndtwi ce t es te d po si ti ve foram

ph et am in e an d m etha m

ph et am in e. He ad m it te d t o h is pro ba ti on of fic er tha t h e h adbe en us in g m etha m ph et am in e, whi ch vi ol at edth e te rm s o f hi s supe rv is edrel eas e. Bas edon th e p ro ba ti on off ic er’s rep ort, t he di st ric t co urt h el d a h eari ng on whet he r Hol la nd ’s supe rv is edrel eas e sh ou ldbe rev ok ed , at wh ic h Hol landst ip ul at edth athe ha d u se d a m ph et am in e an d m etha m

ph et am in e. 2At Ho ll an d’s re vo cat io n h eari ng , th e d is tri ctjud ge reca ll edth atsh e h ad

se nt en cedHol landin 19 98 . “ It wa s a d eat h p en al ty case wh ere M r. Hol la ndwas faci ng th e d eat h p en al ty for h is in vo lv em en t i n am ur de r. He pl edgu il ty andgo t 15 y ears , bu t i t was a ve ry vi ol en t cr im e, an d h e p art ic ip at edin it .” Ult im at el y , th e co urt s en te nc edHol landto 24 -m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d, “ [i]n a cco rd an ce wi th 18 U.S. Cod e, 35 85 (h ) an d S en te nc in g C omm is si on po li ci es 7B 1.3 (g )(2 ),” a n ew te rm of 3 y ears ’ supe rv is edrel eas e. II. Ord in ari ly, we rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t ju dg e’s de ci si on no t to recu se he rs el f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 (a). Uni te d Sta te s v. Ba il ey , 17 5 F .3d96 6, 96 8 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 9) . But , bec au se Hol la nddi d n otsee k re cu sa l i n t he pr oc eed in gs be fo re the di st ric t co urt, we re vi ew hi s co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ct jud ge sh ou ldha ve recu se d su a s po nt e on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d Sta te s v. Berg er , 37 5 F .3d12 23 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). “ To fi ndrev ers ib le erro r un de r th e pl ai n e rro r st an da rd , we m us t co nc lu de th at : (1 ) an erro r oc cu rred , (2) th e err or was pl ai n, (3 ) th e err oraffe ct edsubs tant ia l ri gh ts in th atitwas p reju di ci al an d n ot ha rm le ss , and(4) th e err orser io us ly affect edth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f a jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Per ez , 66 1 F .3d56 8, 5 83 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . 3A di st ric t ju dg e h as anaffi rm at iv e o bl ig at io n t o re cu se when ev er p ro pe r

gr ou nd s ex is t. Uni te d Sta te s v. K el ly , 88 8 F .2d73 2, 7 44 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). W he n a di st ric t ju dg e’s de ci si on no t t o re cu se is ch al le ng ed , we askwhet he r “ an ob jecti ve , di si nt eres te d, l ay

ob se rv er fu ll y

in fo rm edof the fact s u nd erl y in g the gro un ds on whi chrecu sa l was so ug htwou lden te rta in a si gn ifi can t d oubtab ou t t he jud ge ’s im pa rti al it y .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Pa tt , 33 7 F .3d13 17 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Here, t he re was no erro r, pl ai n o r ot he rwis e. The d is tri ctjud ge si m pl y (an d accu rat el y ) st at edth e p en al ti es ou tl in edin th e Uni te d S ta te s C od e fo r th e cri m e wit h wh ic h Ho ll an d was ori gi na ll y in di ct ed . Becau se sh e p res id edov er the in it ia l cri m in al pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t Ho ll an d, t he di st ric t ju dg e wou ldna tu ral ly hav e b een fam il ia r wit h t ha t l aw. True , Hol la ndav oi de d t he po ss ib il ity of the de ath p en al ty by his pl ea ag reem en t, b utth atren de rs th e d is tri ctjud ge ’s st at em en t t ha t h e was ch arg edwith acap it al off en se no les s t ru e. Thu s, t he so le ba si s fo r Hol land ’s arg um en t t ha t the jud ge who sen te nc edhi m sh ou ldha ve recu se d h ers el f is th atsh e sh ou ldno t h av e sa idalo udwhatsh e was du ty-bo un d t o kno w. Butno reas on ab le ob se rv er wo ul d que st io n t he di st ric t ju dg e’s im pa rti al it y be cau se of h er kno wled ge of th e la w th atap pl ie d i n t he ori gi na l ca se or h er ac cu rat e st at em en t o f itat t he

4rev oc at io n h eari ng . Thu s, t he di st ric t ju dg e d idno t err in pre si di ng ov er Ho ll an d’s

rev oc at io n p ro ceed in gs . III. Hol la ndals o d idno t ar gu e b efo re t he di st ric t co urt t ha t t he ap pl ic at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( h) in im

po si ng hi s s en te nc e aft er re vo cat io n was erro ne ou s. As st at edpre vi ou sl y , we wil l n otrev ers e b as edup on anerro r th atis ass ert edforth e fir stti m e o n app eal un le ss th e err orwas p la in . Berg er , 37 5 F .3dat 1 22 7. As t he go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , § 3 58 3( h) di d n otex is t atth e ti m e o f Hol land ’s off

en se co nduc t an d t he Supr em e Co urt h as ex pr es sl y he ldth atitis no t ret ro act iv el y

ap pl ic ab le . Jo hn so n v . Uni te d Sta te s , 52 9 U.S. 6 94 , 70 2 (2 00 0) . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt p la in ly erredin ba si ng it s s en te nc in g d eci si on on § 3 58 3( h) . Pl ai n e rro r al on e, ho wev er, d oe s n otdi ct at e rev ers al ; Ho ll an d m us t al so de m on st rat e th atth e err oraffe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Th atm ean s, as a ge ne ral ru le , th at“ [i]t m

us t h av e aff

ect edth e o ut co m e o f th e d is tri ctco urt p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ol an o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 4 (1 99 3) . A defe nd an t ca n n otest ab li sh th atanerro r affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s wh ere i ts effe ctis in de te rm in at e o r un cert ai n. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ro dr ig ue z , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

5Hol la ndha s n otcarr ie d h is bu rd en to de m on st rat e th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s

erro ne ou s re li an ce upo n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 83 (h ) in fas hi on in g h is sen te nc e was pr ejud ic ia l b ecau se he can no t s ho w any pro babi li ty tha t the di st ric t co urt wo ul d ha ve im po se d adi ffer en t s en te nc e. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Da cu s , 40 8 F .3d68 6, 6 89 (1 1t h C ir.2 00 5) (ho ld in g tha t p la in erro r rev ie w us ua ll y requi res us to co nc lu de th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t re su lt ). In t he same case in whi chth e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t § 35 83 (h ) was no t re tro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le , it al so he ldth atth e p ro vi si on § 3 58 3( h) rep la ced , § 3 58 3( e)(3 ) (1 99 1) , gav e d is tri ct co urts th e au th or it y

up on rev oc at io n o f a d efen da nt ’s supe rv is edrel eas e to im po se re-i m pr is on m en t fo ll owe d b y

a fu rth er p eri odof s up erv is edrel eas e. Uni te d Sta te s v. Gre sh am , 32 5 F .3d12 62 , 12 65 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Jo hn so n , 52 9 U.S. at 71 3) . In o th er wo rd s, t he pro vi si on th atHol la ndco nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d ha ve ap pl ie d p erm it te d t he di st ric t co urt t o i m po se th e sa m e se nt en ce i t ac tu al ly im po se d. An d h e h as m ou nt edno arg um en t t ha t i t wo ul d n otha ve ex erci se d t ha t id en ti cal au th or it y

in th e sa m e way

if i t h adrel ie d upo n t he co rrec t s ta tu to ry pr ov is io n. Th e err orwas h arm le ss . AFFIRMED .

6