Opinion ID: 2811391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supervised Release Revocation Proceedings

Text: As a result of this arrest, and before an indictment was ever returned based on the events leading to this 2013 arrest, the Probation Office filed three identical petitions (one for each prior conviction and sentence) to begin revocation proceedings. These three petitions were subsequently consolidated. The petitions alleged three violations of Defendant’s supervised release: alien smuggling, illegal reentry, and leaving the Southern District of Florida without permission. 9 Case: 14-10591 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 10 of 24 Defendant denied that he had engaged in alien smuggling or had illegally reentered the United States, but he was prepared to admit that he had left the district without permission. By agreement with the Government, the alien smuggling and illegal reentry violations were dropped as grounds for revocation of supervised release, in exchange for Defendant’s agreement not to contest the remaining violation of leaving the district without permission. Because he had different criminal history categories for each of his prior convictions, given the different times at which he was sentenced, Defendant’s advisory guidelines ranges for the revocations varied from 3 to 9 months on the first conviction (criminal history category I), 4 to 10 months on the second conviction (criminal history category II), and 5 to 11 months on the third conviction (criminal history category III). See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), p.s. The statutory maximum sentence for each violation was 24 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The consolidated revocations petitions were assigned to Judge Michael Moore, who held a revocation hearing in February 2014. The court was advised that the alien smuggling and illegal reentry violations had been dismissed, leaving only the violation of leaving the district without permission. Defendant admitted to the court that he had left the district without permission, which constituted a sufficient ground for revoking Defendant’s supervised release. The court inquired 10 Case: 14-10591 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 11 of 24 whether Defendant was contesting the fact that he had been arrested for alien smuggling. Defense counsel conceded that he had been arrested, and the district court stated that it would “adjudicate him guilty of that.” In terms of the facts that the court could properly consider in imposing sentence, Defendant’s counsel took pains to emphasize from the outset that being arrested for an offense was not the same thing as proof that one was guilty of the offense, noting, “This case is not about alien smuggling. It is not about illegal reentry. If, in fact, there is to be an alien smuggling/illegal reentry case and whatever the result is of that matter, that is for another court on another day.” Defendant’s counsel made clear that the arrest for alien smuggling “remains an allegation and that is all it is at the present time.” The district court expressed skepticism at the notion that the violation of leaving the district should be “looked at . . . in a vacuum without the context [of the arrest for alien smuggling].” The court stated that it had “received the amended Report and Recommendation for a final revocation hearing and it set forth a fact pattern here, and for sentencing purposes I think the guidelines provide that the Court may consider information from a variety of sources.”3 As for Defendant’s contention that the violations that had been dismissed were for another court on 3 This Report and Recommendation draws from Agent Hawkins’ affidavit regarding the facts underlying the arrest following the October 23, 2013 abandonment of the 33 Cuban nationals on an uninhabited island. 11 Case: 14-10591 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 12 of 24 another day, the district court expressed uncertainty that Defendant would ever be prosecuted on the charge, stating that it “really [did not] know what the Government will do with respect to this law violation in terms of any future Indictment . . .” After defense counsel’s objection to the court’s consideration of Defendant’s suspected alien smuggling, reiterating that it was only an allegation at that time, the court acknowledged that it would be appropriate to consider Defendant’s alleged smuggling of aliens only if that charge were proved “[b]y a preponderance of the evidence.” At that point, the court orally recited the facts asserted in the affidavit of Agent Hawkins describing the details of Defendant’s apprehension and arrest on October 23, 2013. Further, the district court noted that, although no indictment had yet been returned, United States Customs and Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, and the United States Attorney’s Office were still investigating the alleged alien smuggling and illegal reentry. The court then queried defense counsel, “Now, are you telling me that I cannot consider that information?” Defense counsel responded that the affidavit constituted double hearsay because the writing agent had not been on the scene. Further, while he agreed that the court could consider hearsay, the hearsay had to be reliable, which defense counsel argued was not the case here as the court was merely summarizing a Coast Guard report and Agent Hawkins had not been 12 Case: 14-10591 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 13 of 24 personally present for any of the events he described. Further, counsel noted that he not had any opportunity to question any of the people who had made the observations recited in the report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) (providing opportunity at revocation hearing to “question any adverse witness”). Finally, he noted that the facts contained in the affidavit were not necessarily inconsistent with an inference that these Cuban nationals had been found, not transported, by the Defendant. Acknowledging Defendant’s point, the court then asked if it could at least consider the fact of the arrest as evidence that Defendant left the district, which Defendant’s counsel agreed that it could. Thus, with defense counsel’s acquiescence, the court decided that it could consider the fact that Defendant was out of the district in violation of his supervised release and that he had been arrested for alien smuggling while out of the district. Defendant’s counsel immediately reemphasized, however, that it was the Government’s burden to prove the alien-smuggling conduct underlying the arrest if the court indeed wished to consider that fact in imposing sentence. The court finally agreed that it would consider only the fact of arrest, not that Defendant was actually guilty of the smuggling conduct for which he was arrested. For its part, the Government made clear that while it had dismissed the other violations, they were still under investigation, and that it “can’t make any 13 Case: 14-10591 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 14 of 24 representations today about what will happen with that investigation.” Although recognizing that for purposes of the violation for leaving the district, it did not matter where Defendant had gone, the Government pointed out that Defendant “was found in international waters. And even with the representation that he was out there fishing, he has a history of getting into trouble when he goes out into international waters.” That fact “show[s] a high risk of future felonious conduct because he is out in international waters where he has gotten into trouble in the past.” The Government recommended “a middle-of-the-guideline range” consecutive sentences for each the three supervised release violations, to total 18 months. The court agreed that consecutive sentences were appropriate, but also indicated its belief that an upward variance from the guideline range was in order. The court explained its decision that an upward variance was warranted: [A]fter three convictions and three sentences, [Defendant] has simply shown utter contempt and disrespect for the laws of the United States. Having come to the United States approximately 10 years ago—and a portion of that time having been spent incarcerated on alien smuggling cases, apparently that period of incarceration, including a sentence that was concurrent to his earlier sentences . . . he is unable or appears to be unable or unwilling to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law in this country that this kind of smuggling activity is prohibited. And he just doesn’t seem to get that message. He didn’t get the message when he got 24 months, he didn’t get the message when he got 18 months, and he didn’t get the message when he got 30 months concurrent. 14 Case: 14-10591 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 15 of 24 With that, the court sentenced Defendant to a 24-month sentence of imprisonment on each of the three cases, to run consecutively, for a total of 72 months. The district court also imposed three concurrent 12-month terms of supervised release. Counsel objected to the reasonableness of the sentence, particularly “in light of the one violation.”