2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-17-2005 

# U SA v . J ones P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3976

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . J one s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1172. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1172NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 04- 3976 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OH N J ON ES a /k /a J ohnnyJ ones a /k /a J ohn T ay l or John Jones, A ppel l ant

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D istri ct C o u rtN o . 0 3 -cr-00 0 9 7 -1 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e A l an N . B l och

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o L A R 34. 1( a)

M ay6, 2005 B e f o re : M c K E E , S M IT H , a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: M ay17, 2005)

_____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. J ohn J ones chal l enges t he r evoca t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e forfai l i ng t o abi de2

byt he condi t i on t hathe r epor tt o t he pr obat i on offi ce w i t hi n 72 hour s of hi s r el eas e fr om i ncar cer at i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231 and 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (e ). T h is C o u rt h a s ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. F a cts J ones w as s ent ence d byt he D i s t r i ctC our tt o ei ght een mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entfor bank fr aud. H e had be en hel d i n a countyj ai l pendi ng tr i al and s ent enci ng, and bythe t i m e Jones w as pres ented att he fe deral pri son, his ei gh t een-m on t h sentence had run. A s a r es ul t , he w as r el eas ed fr om fede r al pr i s on thr ee da y s aft erhi s arr i val , r atherthan af t ert he e ig h te e n m o n th s h e w a s s e n te n c e d to s e rv e . J ones w as t ol d byt he fe der al pr i s on offi ci al s thathe w as pr es ent ed t o t hem from l ocal cus t odybym i s t ake. A thi s r evoca t i on hear i ng, J ones cl ai m ed he t ook t hi s t o m ean thathi s ent i r e fe der al s ent ence w as a mi s t ake, abr ogat i ng the condi t i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, and ther efor e he di d notr eportt o t he pr obat i on offi ce. J ones al s o cont ended that h is u n tre a ted m e n tal illn e ss a d d e d to h is c o n f u sio n , an d th a t th e d e a th o f th e m o th e r o f

h is c h ild a n d th e h o sp italiz a tio n o f tw o o f h is s iste rs r e n d e re d h im “ e m o tio n a lly overw hel m ed. ” T he tr ans cr i ptof the col l oquybetw een the D i s t r i ctC our tand J ones i ndi cat es t hat the D istri ct C o u rtd iscred it ed Jo n es’s e x cu ses. T h e D istri ct C o u rtn o ted th at Jo n es’s s ent ence , w hi ch i ncl uded the r eport i ng condi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e, w as nota mi s t ake,3

a n d th a t th e tr a n s c ri p t o f th e s e n te n c in g in d ic a te d th a t J o n e s w a s to ld o f th e re q u ir e m e n t. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfur t hernot ed thatupon hi s r el eas e J ones w as i nform ed bypr i s on o f f icia ls th a t h e h a d to re p o rt to th e p ro b a tio n o f f ice th e f o llo w in g d a y . A lette r to th is eff ectfr om t he U ni tM anage rof the U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i aryi n L ew i s bur g, Penns y l vani a t o t he C hi ef of t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce f orthe W es t ern D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a appe ar s i n t he A ppendi x. T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t Jo n e s h a d v io late d th e re p o rtin g c o n d iti o n o f h is s upervi s ed r el eas e, and s ent ence d J ones t o t w el ve mont hs of i ncar cer at i on, r ecomm endi ng thathe r ece i ve drug, al cohol , and ment al heal t h t r eatm entw hi l e i ncar cer at ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o i m pos ed s ubs t ance abus e and ment al heal t h t r eatm entas a condi t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. A n a ly sis W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r evoca t i on deci s i on forabus e of di s cr et i on, G overnm ent

of the Vi r gi n I s l ands v. Mar t i nez , 2 3 9 F .3 d 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), an d its f in d in g s o f

f a c t in s u p p o rt o f

th a t d e c is io n f

o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. B l acks t on , 940 F . 2 d 8 7 7 , 8 9 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). O n ap p ea l, Jo n es a rgu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred b yeq u ati n g Jo n es’s admi s s i on t hathe di d notr eportt o t he pr obat i on offi ce w i t h a vi ol at i on of the r epor t i ng condi t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hough s t y l ed as a s uffi ci ency - of- t he- evi dence ques t i on, J ones ’ s cont ent i on es s ent i al l yi s thata vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e on w hi ch4

a re v o ca ti o n is ba sed m u st be w il lfu l on the p art of the p rob ati o n er. B ec au se o f Jo n es’s m ent al i l l nes s and l ow I Q , and gi ven the mi s t ake w hi ch l ed J ones t o be pr es ent ed t o the f e d e ra l p riso n w h e n in f

a c t th e e n tiretyo f

h is s e n ten c e h a d b e e n se rv e d in c o u n tyjail, J ones ’ s ar gum entcont i nues , i tw as “pl ai nl yunr eas onabl e” f orthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o fi nd J o n e s h a d k n o w in g ly v io la te d a c o n d itio n o f h is s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . A c o u rt “ m a yre v 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 f e n d a n t to s erve i n pr i s on al l orpart ” of the s t atut or i l y - author i zed s upervi s ed r el eas e per i od i f the cour t“fi nds bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe def endantvi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of su p e rv ise d re lea se .. . . ” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (e )(3 ). T h is lo w e r sta n d a rd o f p ro o f th a n is neede d t o s uppor ta cr i m i nal convi ct i on i s augment ed bythe abs ence of otherpr ocedur al p ro tec tio n s in re v o c a tio n p ro c e e d in g s, m a k in g it “f a r m o re h a z a rd o u s f

o r a re lea se e to w ai tunt i l a condi t i on has been e nfor ced i n or dert o t es ti t s val i di t y . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Loy , 237 F. 3d 251, 260 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Fur t her , byi t s t erm s , § 3583( e) ( 3) does noti ncl ude a s c ie n te r r e q u ir e m e n t. See i d. at265 ( “[R]e l eas e ca n be r evoked f orr eas ons thathave nothi ng t o do w i t h t he ‘ faul t ’ of the off ender , buti ns t ead a r e more r el at ed t o pr ot ect i on of the publ i c. ”) . H ow ever , i f the funda m ent al fai r nes s r equi r ed bydue pr oces s i s i m pl i cat ed, su c h a s w h e re a n im p e c u n io u s p ro b a tio n e r m a k e s a g o o d f a ith a ttem p t to p a ya f

in e , y e t is u n s u c c e s s f

u l, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld re v o c a tio n o f p ro b a tio n is im p ro p e r. B ear den
v . G e o rg ia , 4 6 1 U .S . 6 6 0 , 6 7 2 -7 3 (1 9 8 2 ); se e U n itedS ta tes v . R ife , 835 F. 2d 154, 156 ( 7th C i r . 1987) ( s ugges t i ng t hatextr eme ci r cumst ance s of dur es s w hi ch r es ul ti n a5

v io la tio n o f

a c o n d itio n o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e c o u ld m a k e re v o c a tio n im p ro p e r) . J ones ’ s admi s s i on t hathe di d notr epor tt o t he pr obat i on offi ce w i t hi n 72 hour s of hi s r el eas e al one mayhave be en s uffi ci entevi dence forthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o r evoke J o n e s ’s s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , i.e ., w hetherthe vi ol at i on of the r epor t i ng condi t i on w as w illf u l o r t h e p ro d u c t o f

c o n f u s io n e x a c e rb a te d b ym e n ta l illn e s s m a yn o t m a tte r. W e n ee d n o t dw ell o n the w il lfu lnes s o f th e v iolati o n , h o w ev er, be ca u se th e D istri ct C o u rt w as ent i t l ed t o di s bel i eve J ones ’ s cont ent i on thathe di d notknow he had t o r epor tt o t he p ro b a tio n o f

f ice . Jo n e s’s c rim in a l re c o rd c a lls h is c re d ib ili tyin to q u e stio n – h is u n d e r l yi n g o f

f e n s e w a s b a n k f

r a u d ; a m o n g h i s m a n y p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s a r e tw o f o rf o r g e r y, one fortheftbydece pt i on, and tw o forr et ai l theft s ; and he ha d r epea t edl yvi ol at ed the te rm s o f e a rl ie r p e ri o d s o f

p ro b a tio n b yc o m m ittin g a d d itio n a l c ri m in a l o f f e n s e s . R ather , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as perm i t t ed t o r el yon t he l ett erfr om the fe der al pr i s on offi ci al s t at i ng t hatJ ones had bee n t ol d t o r epor tt o t he pr obat i on offi ce on the day fol l ow i ng hi s r el eas e, and al s o on t he hea r s ayevi dence t o t hateff ectr el at ed t o t he D i s tr i ct C o u rt b yth e p ro b a tio n o f f ic e r. See F ED . R. E V ID . 1101( d) ( 3) ( Feder al R ul es of Evi dence in a p p lica b le to re v o c a tio n p ro c e e d in g s); U ni t ed Stat es v. McC al l um , 677 F. 2d 1024, 1026 ( 4th C i r . 1982) ( not i ng t hata courtm aycons i derhear s ayand document aryevi dence t hat w o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d in a c ri m in a l tr ia l) . M or eover , bas ed on J ones ’ s admi s s i on thathe i s i n need of m ent al heal t h and drug abus e tr eatm ent , and the pr obat i on offi cer ’ s i nabi l i t yt o corr obor at e J ones ’ s fi t ful6

averm ent s t hathe w as part i ci pat i ng i n s uch tr eatm entw hi l e atl ar ge, i tw as w i t hi n t he D istric t C o u rt’s d isc re tio n to re v o k e Jo n e s’s su p e rv ise d re lea se in o rd e r to p ro tec t so c iety f ro m re c id iv is tic b e h a v io r a n d to a s s u re J o n e s re c e iv e s th e tr e a tm e n t h e n e e d s . See U n itedS ta tes v . Kn ig h ts , 534 U . S. 112, 119 ( 2001) ( “The St at e has a dual conce r n w i th a pr obat i oner . O n t he one ha nd i s t he hope thathe w i l l s ucce s s ful l ycompl et e pr obat i on and be i nt egr at ed bac k i nt o t he comm uni t y . O n t he otheri s the conc ern, qui t e j us t i fi ed, that he w i l l be more l i kel yt o engage i n cr i m i nal conductthan an or di narym emberof the c o mmu n i ty . ” ) . As t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r to b s e r v e d , “ [ A] tl e a s ti n p r i s o n [ J o n e s ] c a n g e ts o me tr e a tm e n t f

o r a n ym e n ta l h e a lth p ro b le m s h e m ig h t h a v e . O u ts id e , h e w o n ’t h a v e a n y .” C oncl usi on O n t he r ecor d befor e us , w e fi nd nei t herthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed cl ear err ori n fi ndi ng t hatJ ones vi ol at ed the r epor t i ng condi t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e nor that the D istri ct C o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n in rev o k ing Jo n es’s su p erv ised release fo r a per i od of tw el ve mont hs fort he vi ol at i on. T her efor e, w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt.