Opinion ID: 769716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Supervised Release Revocation Hearing

Text: 9 At the beginning of the revocation hearing, Musa's courtappointed public defender notified the court of Musa's intention to request substitute counsel for the hearing.Without inquiring into Musa's reasons for the request, the court rejected it and directed the government to begin presenting its case. 10 The government's case consisted of a certified public record of Musa's witness intimidation conviction. In opposition, Musa's counsel characterized the underlying conviction as the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding between Mr. Musa and the alleged victim. The court then gave Musa an opportunity to explain his side of the story, which Musa did. Following Musa's explanation, the court found that he had violated his supervised release and sentenced him to prison for three years. When Musa's counsel reminded the court that the guideline range before the court was three to nine months, the court replied, I can go outside the guidelines, and gave as the basis for its departure that Musa is a danger to the community. 11 Musa filed a timely notice of appeal. Thereafter, Musa's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court, to which he attached the report of a mental evaluation performed by Dr. Manuel St. Martin and the declaration of Ms. Hummer, which stated that she had given Musa permission to take her car and that she has never felt threatened by Mr. Musa nor afraid of him. The government opposed the motion for reconsideration on the grounds that it was not timely filed and set forth no new facts warranting reconsideration. The district court summarily denied the motion.