### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 22, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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. 04- 16287 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 0 - 0 0 3 3 9 - C R - T - 2 3 E AJ 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 G U S S I E L I V I N G S T O N , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 22, 2005 B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G ussi e L i vi ng st on , a f

eder al pri soner c on vi ct ed of on e c ou ntof conspi ra cy t o c om m i ta n of

f e ns e a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 371, a nd2

se ven cou nt s of w i re fr aud, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 3, appeal s the di stri ct co u rt ’ s rev o cat i o n o f h er su p erv i sed rel ease t erm an d i m p o si t i o n o f 6 m o n th s’ i mp r i s o n me n ta n d 3 0 mo n th s ’ s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . L i vi n gston ’s C on vi ct i on s an d S en te n ce F o l l o w i n g h er co n v i ct i o n s fo r o n e co u n to f co n sp i racy t o co m m i tan o ffen se agai nstthe U ni t ed S t at es and seven coun t s of w i re fr aud, L i vi ng st on w as se nt ence d t o 1 8 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en tan d 3 6 m o n th s’ su p erv i sed rel ease. L i v i n g st o n al so w a s or de r e d t o pa y as pe c i a l a s s e s s m e ntof $800 a nd r e s t i tut i on i n the a m ountof $1 52 , 88 1. A ft erse rvi ng her t erm of i m pri sonm ent , L i vi ng st on began servi ng her s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e on O c t obe r29, 2003. B . F i rst P eti ti o n fo r R ev o ca ti o n o f S u p erv i sed R el ea se O n F e brua ry 11, 2004, the U ni t e d S t a t e s P r oba t i on O f f i c e pe t i t i one d the di s tr i c tc ourtf

orr e voc a t i on of

L i vi ngs t on’ s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . T he pe t i t i on a lle g e d th a t L iv in g s to n v io la te d th e te rm s o f h e rs u p e rv is e d r e le a s e b y r e f u s in g to m ake m on thl y pay m ent s t ow ar d res t i tut i on or se tup a pay m entpl an. T he di stri ct courthel d a re vo ca t i on hear i ng on A pri l 20 , 20 04 . A tthe heari ng , the di stri ctcourt p o stp o n ed a f

in al d eter m in atio n o n re v o ca ti o n an d m o d ified L iv in g sto n ’s s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e te rm s b y o r d e r in g h e rto p r o v id e th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rw ith3

ac ce ss t o any re qu es t ed fi nanci al i nform at i on . F urther, the di stri ctcourtordered L i vi ngs t on t o r e f

r a i n f r om i nc urr i ng a ny ne w c r e di tc ha r ge s orm a ki ng a ny m a j or pu rc hase s w i tho utthe approv al of the prob at i on offi ce r. T he di stri ctcourtthen co n ti n u ed th e h ea rin g u n ti l N o v em b er1 6 , 2 0 0 4 to p er m itin q u iry in to L iv in g sto n ’s f i na nc i a l pos i t i on. Fo l l o w i n g th e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g , Li v i n g s t o n s i g n e d s e v e r a l r e l e a s e f o rms al l o w i n g th e p ro b at i o n o ffi cer t o access h er fi n an ci al i n fo rm at i o n . S h e al so pr ovi de d doc um e nt a t i on of he re xpe ns e s a nd i nc om e a nd s i gne d ar e s t i tut i on pa y m e nta gr e e m e nti n w hi c h s he a gr e e d t o pa y $20 pe rm onth i n r e s t i tut i on. C . S eco n d P eti ti o n fo r R ev o ca ti o n o f S u p erv i sed R el ea se O n N ove m be r3, 2004, the P r oba t i on O f f i c e s ubm i tt e d as upe r c e di ng pe t i t i on f orr e voc a t i on. T he pe t i t i on r e pe a t e d the a l l e ga t i ons i n the pr e vi ous pet i t i on , and further a l l eged thatL i vi ng st on had fai l ed t o sub m i tre qu es t ed f in a n c ia l d o c u m e n ts a n d h a d f a ile d to s ig n a d d itio n a l f in a n c ia l r e le a s e f

o rm s . O n N o v e m b e r1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld af in a l r e v o c a tio n h e a r in g . D ur i ng the he a r i ng, the pr oba t i on of f i c e rt e s t i f

i e d tha the s e ntal e tt e rt o L i vi ngs t on r e q u e s tin g th a t s h e f

ill o u t c e rta in f

in a n c ia l s ta te m e n ts a n d af in a n c ia l r e le a s e f

o rm . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rt e s t i f

i e d tha tL i vi ngs t on f

a i l e d t o f i l l outthe s t a t e m e nt s a nd sig n th e r elea se fo rm . In O cto b er2 0 0 4 , th e p ro b atio n o ff icerw en t t o L iv in g sto n ’s4

r e s i d e n c e t o h a v e h e rc o mp l e t e th e p ap e rw o rk . H o w e v e r , Li v i n g s t o n b e c a me a n g ry , c a lle d h im a“c r a c k e r ,” a n d r e f u s e d to c o m p le te th e p ap e rw o rk . L i vi ngs t on t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he ha d a l r e a dy s i gne d s i x r e l e a s e f orm s a f t e rthe f ir s t h e a r in g a n d th a t s h e h a d d u tif u lly s u b m itte d h e rm o n th ly f in a n c ia l r e p o r ts . S he a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he ha d be e n m a ki ng l ar ge rpa y m e nt s tha n the r e qui r e d $20 pe rm onth be c aus e pe opl e w e r e he l pi ng he rw i th the pa y m e nt s . S he s t a t e d tha ts he w oul d nots i gn a ny a ddi t i ona l r e l e a s e f orm s e ve n i f

the y w e r e gi ve n t o he ra tthe h e a r in g b e c au s e h e rf

in a n c ia l s itu a tio n h a d n o t c h a n g e d . D . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t ’ s D e c i s i on T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatL i vi ng st on w as gu i l ty of vi ol at i ng her s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e t e rm s . I n m a ki ng i t s de t e rm i na t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tm a de the f ol l ow i ng obs e rva t i ons : ( 1) i tha d “ pr of ound doubt s ” tha tL i vi ngs t on w a s a s poor a s s he c l a i m e d; ( 2) L i vi ngs t on w a s “ unc oope r a t i ve , i ntr a ns i ge nt , a nd abus i ve ” ; ( 3) there w as re as on t o suspectthatL i vi ng st on coul d aff ord t o p aym ore than $ 20 per m onth t ow a r d r e s t i tut i on; ( 4) L i vi ngs t on’ s t e s t i m ony a ttr i a l w a s notc r e di bl e , a nd thu s herst at em ent s r egar di ng her f i nances w er e s uspect ; (5) L i vi ng st on had engaged i n a prog ra m of avoi dance desi gn ed t o p re ventthe di sc ov ery of hernet w or th; a nd ( 6) L i vi ngs t on ne ve rha d a c c e pt e d r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd ha d pe r s i s t e d i n a pr ogr a m of

de f i anc e , i nc l udi ng r e f

us i ng t o s i gn the f

i na nc i a l r e l e a s e f

orm s a tthe5

he a r i ng. T h e d i stri ctco u rtth en n o t ed th atth e G u i d el i n es ran g e w as 3 -9 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc ourts e nt e nc e d L i vi ngs t on t o 6 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt and 3 0 m on ths’ supervi se d rel ea se . In i t s w ri tt en order, fi l ed af t erthe re vo ca t i on hear i ng , the di stri ctcourt s t a t e d: T h e A p r il, 2 0 0 4 , h e a r in g w a s c o n tin u e d f o rs ix m o n th s to p e rm it i nqui ry i nt o the de f

e nda nt ’ s f

i na nc i al p os i t i on. A l though pa y i ng m on thl y, the defendanthas obstruct ed ef fort s by the P ro b at i on O ff i ce r t o s upe rvi s e he ra nd t o di s c ove rhe rtrue r e s our c e s , w hi c h m i ght c ontr i but e t o r e t i r i ng ove r$150, 0 0 0 ow e d i n r e s t i tut i on. T he defe nd ant ’ s h ist ory ( fr aud and other f i nanci al gam es m anshi p) and h er dem eano r throu gh ou tthe i nst antca se (arr og antand v erbal l y abu si ve, i nc l u d i n g s a y i n g s h e w a s “ s i c ko f ” th e Pr o b a t i o n O f

f i c e r , w h o m s he c ha r a ct eri z e d a s a“ w hi t e c r a c ke r ” ) a ggr a va t e he rnon- c om pl i a nc e a nd s tr ongl y s ugge s tpurpo seful a nd i ntr a ns i ge ntobs truc t i on. A ttr i a l a nd s e nt e nc i ng, th e d e f

e nda nt ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s unw or thy of be l i e f a nd m a n if e s tly c o n tr a ry to o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e . R e g r e ttab ly , th is pa t t e rn c o n t i n u e s t o d a y . A c c o r d i n g l y , th e Co u r ta c c e p t s th e t e s t i m ony of U ni t e d S t a t e s P r oba t i on O f f i c e r P a l m i ott o a nd r e

j e c t s the t est i m ony of the de f e nda nt , t o the e xt e ntof a ny co n fl i c t . O f

c our s e , the defendantof

f e r e d a tl e a s tone pi e c e of hi ghl y pe r s ua s i ve t e s t i m ony w he n s he t e s t i f

i e d, a c c e nt i ng he rde f

i a nc e, t h a ts he w oul d notpr ovi de the P robat i on O ff

i ce r f i nancial r el ea se s or anetw orth st at em ent , even i f a s ke d t oda y a tthe he a r i ng. L i vi ngs t on appe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p eal , L i v i n g st o n arg u es th atth e i m p o si t i o n o f si x m o n th s’S p ec i fi ca l ly, th e di s tri ctco urtmu s tco n s i d er th e f o l l o wi n g: 1 (1) the na ture a nd circumstances of

the offense and thehistory and cha racteristics of the de fenda

nt; (2) the nee d for the sentenceimposed (A) to re flec t the seri ou sn e ss o f t

heof fens e , topromo tere sp e c t f or thelaw, and

to pro videjus t punis hment f

or theof fens e ; ( B ) to aff

ord ade quatedeterrenc eto crimin al c onduc t; (C) to protec t the public from fur ther crimes of the de fenda nt; and (D) to provide the def endant with nee ded [treatment]; . . . (4) the kinds of sentenc e and the sentenc ing rang e esta

blished for . . . (B ), in the ca se of a violation of probation or supervised relea se, the a

pplicable guidelines or policy statements issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion . . . ; and (5) any pertinent policy

statement issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 6 i m pri sonm entw as un re as on abl e. L i vi ng st on further a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourt f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe f

a c t or s s e tf

or th i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) a nd ove r s t a t e d the s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e v io la tio n . F in a lly , s h e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to c o n s id e rth a t s h e in itia lly h a d s u b m itte d th e r e q u ir e d p ap e rw o rka n d c o n s is te n tly h a d b e e n m a k in g r e s titu tio n p a y m e n ts . U p o n f in d in g th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t v io la te d ac o n d itio n o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e , a di s tr i c tc ourtm a y r e voke the t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a nd i m pos e at e rm of im p r is o n m e n t a f

te rc o n s id e r in g c e r ta in f a c to r s s e t f

o r th in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 5 8 3 ( e ) . T h e s e n te n c in g c o u rt “s h a ll s ta te in o p e n c o u r t th e r e a s o n s f o rits im p o s itio n o f

th e p a rtic u la rs e n te n c e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( c ) . P r i ort o B ooke r , w e r e vi e w e d af e de r a l s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rr e voc a t i on of s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e u s i n g th e “ p l a i n l y u n r e a s o n ab l e ” s t a n d a r d s e tf o r th i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 ( e ) ( 4 ) . U n ite d S ta te s v . S c r o g g in s , 9 1 0 F .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) .7

H ow ever , i n B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rtexci se d § 37 42 (e )( 4), w hi ch cont ai ned s t a nda r ds of

r e vi e w , f

r om the S e nt e nc i ng R e f orm A c ta nd r e pl a c e d i tw i th a r e a s o n ab le n e s s s ta n d a r d . B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 6 4 - 6 6 . P o st-B o o k er , o u r s ister c ircu it s h av e d eter m in ed th at B o o k er ’s re as on abl enes s s t andard i s the sa m e a s the no w -e xci se d “ pl ai nl y unrea sonabl e” s ta n d a r d in § 3 7 4 2 ( e ) ( 4 ) . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . T e d f o r d , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 1 ( 1 0 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( “ A l tho ug h the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker a l t e r e d ours t a nda r d of

r e vi e w f orm os ts e nt e nc i ng c a s e s , the s t a nda r d of r e vi e w f or cases w h ere th e d efen d an tch al l en g es th e rev o cat i o n o f h er su p erv i sed rel ease r e m a i ns the s a m e . ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ott on, 399 F . 3d 913, 916 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( “ [ T ] he ne w s t a nda r d of r e vi e w w i l l notc ha nge the r e s ul ti n thi s c a s e , be c aus e the new st andard i s a ctual l y the sa m e a s the on e w e w ou l d h ave use d o therw i se . ”) ; U n i t ed S t at es v . F l em i n g , 3 9 7 F . 3 d 9 5 , 9 9 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (ap p l yi n g reaso n ab l en ess s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w in r e v o c a tio n o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e c a s e a f te rB o o k e r ) . W e a g r e e a n d r e v ie w L iv in g s to n ’s s e n te n c e f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . L iv in g s to n c o m m itte d aG r a d e C v io la tio n o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e b y f a ilin g to fol l ow her s up ervi se d rel ea se t erm s. U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 1(a) (3). A tthe t i m e of her or i gi na l s e nt e nc i ng, s he ha d ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I . T hus , he rgui de l i ne i m p ri so n m en tran g e u p o n a rev o cat i o n o f su p erv i sed rel ease w as 3 -9 m o n th s’8

im p r is o n m e n t. U .S .S .G . § 7 B 1 .4 ( a ) . A s the di stri ctcourtfoun d, L i vi ng st on vi ol at ed the t erm s of hersupervi se d r e le a s e b y f

a ilin g to p r o v id e a ll o f

th e f o rm s r e q u e s te d b y th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r . F ur the r , L i vi ngs t on s t a t e d a tthe r e voc a t i on he a r i ng tha ts he s t i l l w oul d nots i gn the f orm s . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on w a s r e a s onabl e a nd nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on i n l i gh tof the fa ct ors s etforth i n § 35 53 (a ). S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourt det erm i ned thatL i vi ng st on : (1) pre vi ou sl y had com m i tt ed cr i m es of fr aud that i nd i ca t ed a l ac k o f trustw orthi ness ; (2) had never ac ce pt ed re spon si bi l i ty f or her c r i m e s ; ( 3) ha d be e n ve rba l l y abus i ve t o he rpr oba t i on of f i c e r ; ( 4) m i ghtbe c o n tin u in g w ith h e rp a s t f r au d b y h id in g h e ra s s e ts to a v o id p a y in g r e s titu tio n in f ul l ; a nd ( 5) ne e de d t o c oope r a t e w i th pr oba t i on s o tha tthe r e s t i tut i on c oul d be pai d. T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d L i vi ng st on w i thi n the re com m ended G ui del i nes r a nge f ors uc h avi ol a t i on. I n l i ghtof the t e s t i m ony pr e s e nt e d a tthe r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, L i vi ngs t on’ s c ont i nui ng r e f us a l t o s i gn the ne c e s s a ry f orm s , a nd the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n to s e n te n c e L iv in g s to n w ith in th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e , it c a n n o t b e s a id th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . U p o n r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d th e p a r tie s ’ b r ie f s , w e d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le error. A s s uch, w e a ff

i rm L i vi ng st on ’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.