Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julius JeJuan HALL, also known as Julius Hall, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-13
Citations: 324 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 08-50699
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julius JeJuan HALL, also known as Julius Hall, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 435–435

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julius JeJuan HALL, also known as Julius Hall, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50699
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 13, 2009.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeffrey D. Parker, Belton, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Julius JeJuan Hall appeals the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 16 months of imprisonment. Hall contends that the district court erred when it revoked his supervised release.
A district court may revoke a term of supervised release upon a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The district court's revocation of supervised release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir.1995).
Regardless of whether the stop and detention of Hall violated the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of supervised release hearings absent a demonstration of police harassment. United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 857-59 (5th Cir.1992). This record discloses no evidence of Hall having been so harassed. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Hall's supervised release under the facts of this case.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cut R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cut. R. 47.5.4.