Opinion ID: 60168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probation Revocation

Text: Burke argues that he did not violate his probation on the bribery offense because he was not on probation when he testified to accepting a bribe at his October 14, 2005 plea hearing. Burke does not dispute that he was on probation when he provided contrary testimony at the May 2006 trial of his co-defendant. We review “a district court’s revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Mitsven, 452 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S. Ct. 663, 166 L. Ed. 2d 521 (2006). We review a district court’s statutory interpretation de novo. United States v. Castro, 455 F.3d 1249,