Opinion ID: 66486
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Boco’s violations of supervised release

Text: In October 2005, Boco’s probation officer reported that Boco had violated his supervised release by receiving citations for driving with a suspended license, speeding, and failing to maintain proof of insurance. The district court did not take any action against Boco at that time. In June 2006, the district court found that Boco had violated his supervised release by using a controlled substance and modified the conditions of Boco’s supervised release to require him to participate in a home detention program for sixty days. In February 2007, the district court required Boco to participate in a residential treatment center for 180 days because he violated his supervised release by: (1) unlawfully possessing or using a controlled substance; (2) leaving the 2 judicial district without permission from his probation officer; (3) failing to notify his probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; and (4) failing to submit a truthful and complete monthly report to his probation officer. In May 2007, the district court issued a summons because Boco again had violated his supervised release by being discharged from the residential treatment center for consuming alcohol. In June 2007, Boco was arrested for violating his supervised release by: (1) failing to participate in the residential treatment center; (2) committing a robbery with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; and (3) not reporting contact with law enforcement to his probation officer within seventy-two hours. The district court issued a warrant for Boco’s arrest. B. Hearing on revocation petition before a magistrate judge In a December 2007 hearing before a magistrate judge, Boco admitted to being discharged from the residential center for alcohol consumption and failing to notify his probation officer that he had been questioned by law enforcement. As to the assault and robbery, Jonathan Beuter testified that Boco and another man attacked him while he was leaving a strip club and that Boco stabbed him in the chest with a knife, punched him, and robbed him of his gold necklaces and wallet. 3 Detective Orville Wright testified that he saw Boco speeding off in a car immediately after the attack. The magistrate judge’s report (“R&R”) found that Beuter’s in-court identification of Boco and description of the attack were credible and thus found by a preponderance of the evidence that Boco committed the three violations. In an order dated January 2, 2008, the district court adopted the R&R. C. Sentencing hearing before the district court At sentencing, the district court reaffirmed its finding that Boco committed the three violations. The government recommended that the district court impose the statutory maximum of three years’ imprisonment because of his criminal history and recidivism. Boco noted that the advisory guidelines range was twelve to eighteen months’ imprisonment. Boco also argued that the district court should consider Boco’s cooperation with the government in two unrelated cases. The government acknowledged that Boco had agreed to cooperate with the government, but argued that it would be premature for Boco to benefit from his cooperation because he had not yet been called to testify as a witness. The district court acknowledged that it had considered the advisory guidelines range. Although it commended Boco for cooperating with the government, the district court stated that it would consider his cooperation only if the government filed a motion outlining the extent of Boco’s cooperation and 4 requesting that he receive a reduction of his sentence. The district court stated that it was “absolutely satisfied that Mr. Boco did, in fact, commit that assault which turned into a robbery on that young man” and discussed the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). After reviewing the assault and robbery and noting that it occurred outside of a strip club where Boco apparently was a regular, the district court stated that “[i]t just makes you stop and wonder whether he is, frankly, trying to turn his life around or is he doing other things and certainly doing it in a way that is just going to send him back to the problems he is having before.” The district court opined that instead of turning into a law-abiding citizen, Boco was “engaged in an activity that puts him on a trajectory back to what he was doing in the first place.” The district court expressed the need to impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. The district court stated that this was a “serious offense” and that Boco needed to understand that he could not “do things like this.” After examining the robbery and assault that occurred here and Boco’s prior conduct, the district court stated that “[i]t really suggests that he learned nothing while on supervised release.” Thus, the district court revoked Boco’s supervised release and imposed a thirty-six-month sentence. Boco objected that the district court’s sentence was unreasonable. 5 Boco filed this appeal.1