FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 20, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1593 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 94-00102 -CR- MHS -1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us SY LV ES TE R L EE HEND RICK S, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 20 , 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , P RY O R and F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Up on fi nd ingthat a

de fe nd ant v iol ate d a

c on dit ion

of su pe rv ise d r e le a se , a

dis tr ic t c ourt 1 may , amongother options, revoke a ter m of supervised r elea se and r equire the def endant to ser

ve in prison all or part of

the term of supe rvised re lease . See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (3). 2 Sy lve ste r L ee H en dr ic ks a ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ev oc at ionof his se co nd te rm of sup er vis ed r el ea se , pur suant t o 18 U . S. C. § 35 83( e) , w hic h w as ba se d on the court’ s determ ination that He ndricks vio lated a condition of his supervised relea se by

knowinglyassociating with at least one person who was a convicted fe lon . H en dr ic ks arg ue s onappe al that the c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n inr ev oki ng 1 his sup er vis ed r el ea se be ca

use the c ourt e ith er

did not r equir e a show ing that he kne wthat a

pe rs on h e as soc ia te d w ithw as ac onvi ct ed f el on, or it r el ie d on ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce in fi ndi ng tha t H en dr ic ks h ad suc h kn ow le dge . F or

the r e a s o n s s e tf

o rt h mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. InS ep te m

be r 1994 , H en dr ic ks w as se nte nc ed to 78 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t, 3 y ears ’ sup er

vis ed r el ea se , a nd a

$1, 500 fi ne f

or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m a s a co nvi ct ed f el on, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). A s st an dard c ondi tio ns o f his sup er vis ed r el ea se , the c ourt or de re d th at he “ not a sso ci at e w itha ny

pe rs ons engaged in crim inal activity , and [] not associate with any person convicted of a felony unless granted perm issio n to do so by the probation officer .” In Fe bruary 2000 , f oll ow ing ahe ar ing , the c ourt f ound that H en dr ic ks h ad

vio la te d ate rm

of his sup er vis ed r el ea se , r ev oke d hi s or igi na l t er m of sup er vis ed r el ea se , a nd3

sentenced him

to six m onth s’ im

prisonm ent, to be followe d by an addition al term of two y ears’ supervised release. In January 2003 , H endricks again was r eleased fro m in carc erat io n a nd be ga n s erv in g h is sec on d t erm of s up erv is edrel eas e. InJun e 2004 , the gov er

nm en t f ile d ape tit ionf

or w ar rant and o rd er

to show ca use w hy thi s se co nd t er

m of sup er vis ed r el ea se sho uld

not be r ev oke d, ba se d on H en dr ic ks’ s c om

m itt ing the ne wstate of

fe nse s of obs tr uc tin g po lic e of

fi ce rs , poss es sio n of

m ar ij uana , pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar m by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, a nd the ft

by rece iving stolen prop erty , a s evidenced by his arrest by

the De kalb Count y

Police D ep ar tm en t onMay

19, 200 4. I n Ju ly

200 4, a t an e vid en tiary

he ar ing on the se al le ge d vi olatio ns, H en dr ic ks a dm itt ed that he w as dr ivi ng the ve hic le use d inthe com m issio n of the charged offe nses on which this petition wa s based, but he, otherwise, denied invo lvem ent in the new offe nses. T he governm ent, there after , ca lle d a s w itn es se s K ev in R oy Whit e, the D ek al b C ounty P oli ce O ff

ic er w ho ar re ste d H en dr ic ks f

or the above -r ef

er en ce d of

fe nse s, a nd S he lle y

Jon es , Hen dr ic ks ’s pro ba ti on off ic er. Of ficer White testified that, on the evening of Hendricks’ s arre st, O ffice r Whit e an d othe r of

fi ce rs w er e on p atro l w he n O ff ic er Whit e obse rv ed

ape rs on, who was l at er i de nt ifi edas M ic ha el Beak s, wal k a way fro m th e p ol ic e v eh ic le . Af ter the police stopped Beaks to qu estion hi m , B eaks inform ed them that three4

m en had j ust approached him in a red F ord Expedition andhad robbed him at gunp oint, taking app roxim ately $80 in cash and a ce ll pho ne. Beaks described these m en, including th e clothing each was w earing and the firearm s they used against him . In addition , B eaks told the officers that (1) H endricks was the driver of the ve hic le ; ( 2) the f

ro nt- se at pa sse nge r, K en ne th S pe ar m an , got out of the ve hic le , poi nte d aguna t B eaks, a nd f or ce d hi m

to ge t i nto the ba ck

se at of the vehicle; (3) Jam es Reid, who w as sitting in the back seat, then poi nted a gun at Be ak s and f

or ce d hi m

to hand o ve r his m one y

a nd c el l ph one ; and ( 4) the oc cupa nt s o f th e v eh ic le ev en tu al ly tol d B eak s t o g etou t o f th e v eh ic le an d ru n. Of ficer White further stated that, later that sam e evening, the offic ers located at a gas station the three m en Beaks had described. T hese m en we re ap pr oxi m at el y

f ive m ile s f

ro m w he re the of

fi ce rs f ir st h ad e nc ount er ed

Be ak s and we re dre ssed in th e clothing Beaks had described. When the officers a pproached these m en, S pearm an and Reid attem pted to flee. The officer s, howe ver, ev en tu al ly app reh en de d a nd arre st edall of t he se m en . Mor eo ve r, O ff

ic er Whit e te sti fi ed

that, on s earc hin g th e ve hic le H en dr ic ks wa s driving , which was re gistered to a fem ale fr iend of Hendricks, the officer s re co ve re d th re e loa de d handguns, ac el lul ar pho ne , a nd l es s th ana n ounc e of m ar ij uanaf

ro m the ve hic le . T he handguns w er e re co ve re d sp ec if ic al ly f ro m the5

fr ont pa sse nge r se at , a lbe it unde r a shi rt ; i n th e ba ck se at f loo rb oard ; and i n th e m iddle crack betw een the cushions of the back seat. O ffice r White also stated that, be ca use Be ak s ul tim at el y

r ef use d to ide nti fy

a ny of the r ec ove re d it em s f

ro m the vehicle or to press charges, the governm ent dism issed the arm ed robbery charges against He ndricks, Spear m an, and Reed. In addition , P robation Office r Jone s te sti fi ed , pr es um ab ly to ex pla in why

H en dr ic ks d id n ot f

le e fr om the of fi ce rs , that, due to a gun- shot inj ur y , H en dr ic ks w oul d have be enuna ble to run in May 200 4. Af ter hear ing argum ents from the parties on the alleged violatio ns, the court state d th at

“ I thi nk h e is g uil ty , I thi nk the gunw as c er ta inl y in his c onstru ct ive poss es sio n. ” N ev er

the le ss, the c ourt e xpr es se d th at it w as he sit an t t o f

ind He n d ri ck s i n v i o l at i o n o f h i s s up er v i s ed re l ea s ed b as edo n Of fi ce r Wh i t e’s reco un ti ng of s ta te m en ts m ad e b y Beak s, wh o m ay

no t h av e b een tel li ng th e trut h. T he c ourt, thu s, c ont inu ed the he ar ing to al lowthe gov er nm en t the opp ortun ity

to locate Beaks and su bpoena him . The governm ent subs equently filed an am ended petition to revoke He ndricks’s supervised relea se, a ddin g the additio nal al le gatio ns tha t H en dr ic ks h ad a sso ci at ed

w ithtw o c onvi ct ed

f el ons, that i s, Spearm an and Reid, and that he had asso ciated w ith them while they

we re en ga gi ng in cri m in al act iv it y .6

InO ct obe r 2004 , w he n H en dr ic ks’ s r ev oc at ionhe ar ing r ec onve ne d, the gove rn m en t c al le d no a ddi tio na l w itn es se s, e xpl ai nin g th at it ha d be enuna

ble to locate Beaks. Instead, the governm ent, over a hearsay objec tion, adm itted copies o f R e i d ’s a n dS p e a rman ’s c r i mi n a l - h i s t o ry r e p o rt s f r o m th e N a t i o n a l C r i me In fo rm at ionCe nte r (“

N CI C r ep orts” ). H en dr ic ks r es pond ed that the gov er

nm en t had failed to show that he knowinglyhad been in the com pany of a c onvi cted fe lon . D isa gr ee ing w ithH en dr ic ks’ s arg um en t, the c ourt st at ed a s f oll ow s: I knowif he w as in a car w iththr ee c onvi ct ed f el ons an d w ithhis ba ck gr ound

a nd w iththe w ea

pons a nd s o f

orth, he kne wtho se pe opl e w er e co nvi ct ed

f el ons, he kne ww ho h e w as de al ing w ith , so unle ss y ou’ ve got

som ethin g e lse , I ’ m

goi ng t o f

ind that he w as in the com pany of convicted felons, three convicted felons, and that supe rv ise d r el ea se sho uld be r ev oke d. T he c ourt f

urthe r ex pla ine d th at , a lth oughit did not be lie ve that the e vid en ce in the r ec or d e sta

bli she d th at

H en dr ic ks c onstru ct ive ly pos se sse d th e fi re ar

m s, the am en de d a lle ga tio n of

be ing “ in the c om

pany of c onvi ct ed

f el ons” w as suf

fi ci en t t o re v o k e s up er v i s ed re l ea s e. Th e c o u rt , t h er ef o re , r ev o k ed He n d ri ck s ’s supervised release and sentence him to 18 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent, w ith no further su pe rv is edrel eas e to fol lo w.7

A s di sc uss ed

above , H en dr ic ks arg ue s onappe al that the c ourt e rr ed in revoking his sup ervised relea se without first finding th at he knew that he w as associating with a convicted felon, because this knowledge was an essential el em en t of

the a lle ge d vi olatio n. I n th e al te rn at ive , H en dr ic ks c onc ed es that the co urt f ound that he kne wthat he w as a sso ci at ing w itha t l ea st o ne c onvi ct ed f el on, but he c ont en ds tha t this f

ind ing w as c le ar ly

e rr one ous. I n su

ppor t of thi s se co nd ar gum en t, H en dr ic ks c ont en ds tha t the e vid en ce on whic h th e gove rn m en t r el ie d in es ta bli shi ng the vio la tio n ( 1) w as he ar say , ( 2) onl y sho w ed that S pe ar

m anw as a co nv ic te d fe lo n, an d (3 ) di d n ot est ab li sh th atHend ric ks kn ew of th e co nv ic ti on . As a prelim inary

m atter, to the extent Hendricks’ s appeal can be construed as c ha lle ngi ng the c ourt’ s a dm iss ion , ove r a he ar say obj ec tio n, of

S pe ar m an ’ s and Re id’ s N CI C r ep orts, the F ed er al Ru le s of E vid en ce do n ot a

ppl y in re voc at ion pr oc eed in gs . Uni te d S ta te s v . Frazi er, 2 6 F .3d11 0, 1 14 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Howev er, the a dm iss ibi lity

of he ar say is not a uto m at ic . D ef

en dants inv olv ed

in re voc at ionpr oc ee din gs are e nti tle d to c er ta in m ini m al due pr oc es s re qui re m en ts. . . . A m ong the se m ini m al r equir em en ts i s th e ri ght to co nf ro nt and c ro ss- ex am ine a dve rs e w itn es se s. Id. ( quot ations om itted). “ Thus, in deciding whether or not to adm it hearsay te sti m ony , the c ourt m

ust ba lanc e the de fe ndant’ s r igh t t o c onf ro nt a dve rs e8

w itn es se s a ga ins t the gr ound s a sse rt ed by the gov er

nm en t f or de ny ing co nf ro ntatio n. ” I d. Mo re ove r, the he ar say state m en t m

ust be r el ia ble . I d. Inthe ins tant c as e, the c ourt r el ie d onac opy of S pe ar m an ’ s N CI C r ep ort i n de te rm ini ng tha t H en dr ic ks a sso ci at ed w ithakno w n c onvi ct ed

f el on. W e ha ve determ ined that an NCIC report is hearsay and does no t fall w ithin the Feder al Business Records Act or any other rec ogni zed exception to the hearsay rule. See U nit ed S ta te s v. L ong, 578 F . 2d 5 79, 581 ( 5thCi r. 197 8) . I nst ea d, ac er tif ie d c opy of co nv ic ti on is pro pe r ev id en ce t ha t t he de fen da nt vi ol at eda st at e o r fed eral law. See Un it edSta te s v . Hofi erk a, 83 F.3d 35 7, 3 63 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). How ever, other than stating that this evid ence w as hearsay , H endricks failed to arg ue in the dis tr ic t c ourt, a nd h as not e xpl ai ne d onappe al , e ith er w hy thi s ev ide nc e w as unr el ia

ble , or howhis int er es t i n c onf

ro ntatio n ou tw ei ghe d th e gove rn m en t’ s in te re st i n pr oduc ing thi s e vid en ce . I nde ed , a lth oughH en dr ic ks argues on appeal that Reid’ s NCI C re port did n ot establish that he wa s a convicted fel on , he c on ced es th atSp earm an ’s NCIC rep or t es tabl is he d h is st atus as a fel on . The co ur t, t he refo re, d idno t err in ad m it ti ng th is ev id en ce. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ev oc at ionof sup er vis ed r el ea se f or a n a buse of discretion. Fr azier , 26 F. 3d at 112 . As discussed above, a district court m ay revoke a ter

m of supervised release if

it “ finds bya preponderance of the evidenceWe have c oncluded that the a naly sis of the revoc ation proce eding s relatingto probation 2 and super vised rele ase a

re “ essentially

the same.” See Almand, 992 F .2d at 318 n.5. 9 that the pe rs on v iol at ed

ac ondi tio n of

sup er vis ed r el ea se . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Alm and, 992 F.2d 316, 318 n.6 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting 18 U. S. C. § 358 3(e)( 3)); se e al so Unit ed

S ta te s v. Ro bin son, 893 F . 2d 1 244, 124 5 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) ( hol din g in a reviewof a probation revocation that “ all that is required is that the evidence reasonably

satisfy the j udge that th e conduct of the probation er has not been as good a s r equir ed

by the c ondi tio ns o f pr oba tio n; e vid en ce that w oul d e sta bli sh guilt bey ond a reasonable doub t is not required” (quotatio n om itted)). Moreover, 2

“ [a ] dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of

f ac t are bin din g onthi s [ C] ourt un le ss c le ar ly er ro ne ous. ” A lm an d, 992 F . 2d at 31 8 ( quot at ionom itt ed ) I n r e v o k i n g H e n d r i c k s ’s s up e rv i s e dr e l e a s e , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtf o u n dt h a t“I knowif he w as in a car w iththr ee c onvi ct ed f el ons an d w ithhis ba ck gr ound a nd w iththe w ea

pons a nd s o f

orth, he kne wtho se pe opl e w er e co nvi ct ed f el on, he kne ww ho h e w as de al ing w ith. . . . ” T hus, c ontrary to H en dr ic ks’ s arg um en t on appeal, the r ecord re flects that the court found that Hendricks knew that he w as as soc ia tin g w itha t l ea st o ne c onvi ct ed f el on. W e, the re fo re , onl y r ev ie wthi s factual f indin g for clear er

ror, and we need not determ ine whether the violatio n at iss ue is via

ble w ith out

asho w ing of

kno w le dge on the de fe ndant’ s part . S ee id.To the extent the g overnme nt has responde d that the cour t did not abuse of discre tion 3 beca use the g overnme nt also established by the pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that He ndricks vio late d th e c on dit ion s o f h is r e le a se by a sso c iatin gwi th p e rs on s who we re in e ng a g e d in criminal ac tivity , we may aff irm a district court’ s decision base d “on a ground other tha n that upon which [the district court] based its decision.” See United States v. Sim mons, 368 F.3d 1335, 1342 (11th Cir. 2004) (upholdingan upwa rd depa rture ba sed on other grounds). Ne ve rt he le ss, be c a

us e , a s d isc us se d a

bo ve , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in revokingHendr icks’s super vised rele ase ba sed on his knowingassociation with at lea st one convicted f

elon, we ne ed not deter

mine whether

this other violation was established. 10 Furtherm ore, He ndricks has failed to sho w that this factual f indin g was cl earl y e rr one ous. H en dr ic ks’ s su pe rv ise d r el ea se w as ba se d onhis c onvi ct ionf or p o s s es s i n g a f

i re ar m as a c o n v i ct ed fe l o n . Of fi ce r Wh i t e t es t i fi ed at He n d ri ck s ’s ini tia l r ev oc at ionhe ar ing that B eaks r ep orte d th at H en dr ic ks, S pe ar

m an , a nd R ei d robbed him

at gunpo int. Beaks told Of ficer White what clothing th ese m en we re w eari ng, the ve hic le the y w er e dr ivi ng, a nd the f

ir earm s th ey

use d. O ff

ic er Whit e a l s o s t a t e dt h a t , w h e n h e a n dt h e o t h e r o f f i c e r s s t o p p e dt h i s v e h i c l e t h a ts a me ev en ing , appr oxi m at el y

f ive m ile s f

ro m w he re the y

f ir st e nc ount er ed

Be ak s, H en dr ic ks w as dr ivi ng the ve hic le a nd the m enins ide it m at ch ed the de sc ri pti ons giv enby Be ak s. I n a ddi tio n, the of fi ce rs r ec ove re d f

ro m thi s ve hic le m ar ij uanaa nd thr ee f ir earm s, inc lud ing one on the se at ne xt t o H en dr ic ks, a lbe it unde rn eath a shi rt . T hus, the c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in fi ndi ng tha t H en dr ic ks h ad the r equis ite know le dge . S ee A lm an d, 992 F . 2d at 31 8. 311

A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in rev ok in g Hen dr ic ks ’s supe rv is edrel eas e. W e, th eref or e, affi rm . AFFIRMED.