Opinion ID: 66346
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: July 2006 Revocation Hearing

Text: In May 2000, Diaz was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(2), in the Eastern District of Louisiana and sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. In December 2001, Diaz’s supervised release was revoked and a new sentence of seven months’ imprisonment and twenty-six months’ supervised release was imposed. On May 31, 2002, Diaz began serving his second supervised release term. In November 2003, a warrant was issued for Diaz’s arrest for new violations of his supervised release. In June 2005, jurisdiction over Diaz’s supervised release was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia. In a March 2006 bench trial, a district court judge in Georgia convicted Diaz of two counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), two counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation 2 of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). The same district court judge who presided over Diaz’s supervised release hearings presided over Diaz’s March 2006 bench trial. In July 2006, Diaz’s probation officer filed a petition to revoke Diaz’s supervised release because Diaz had committed the following seven violations of the conditions of his supervised release: (1) failing to submit monthly reports from July to October 2003; (2) failing to report a change in his residence in June 2003; (3) failing to report a June 2003 arrest for possession of marijuana, resisting an officer, and battery on a police officer; (4) leaving a drug/aftercare program in June 2003; (5) leaving a mental health treatment program in June 2003; (6) failing to complete an orientation and life skills program; and (7) committing another federal crime, as evidenced by his March 2006 convictions for armed bank robbery, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (collectively “the armed bank robbery convictions”). Diaz was arrested, and the court appointed Natasha Perdew Silas, a federal public defender, as Diaz’s counsel. Silas has represented Diaz both in the district court and now on appeal. In July 2006, the district court held a revocation hearing with Diaz and his counsel present. Diaz stated his true name was “D’Ineiehaimaye” and refused to 3 acknowledge that he was Michael Diaz. The district court asked Diaz if he remembered serving time in Louisiana. Diaz responded, “I’m not here to dispute the facts of the case or argue the allegations. The record speaks for itself.” Diaz submitted three pro se motions and explained that he wanted the court to “dismiss all the binds alleged against the D’Ine and loose the D’Ine from this captivity, this illegal captivity this day.” The district court denied Diaz’s request to release him. The government read the seven allegations in the revocation petition. The district court asked Diaz’s counsel if she had reviewed the allegations with Diaz. Diaz’s counsel said she had presented them to Diaz and there had been a preliminary hearing on them. The district court asked Diaz if he understood the allegations against him, and Diaz said he was familiar with the petition. The district court again asked Diaz to explain the written motions he had filed. Diaz stated, “I’m moving that the court loose D’Ine from his illegal captivity.” The district court again denied Diaz’s request. The district court asked Diaz’s counsel if she had anything to say. Diaz’s counsel asked the court to dismiss the revocation petition because Diaz already was serving a 584-month sentence on the armed bank robbery convictions, and Diaz did not object to counsel’s request. The district court stated that it would not 4 dismiss the petition and that it would continue the revocation hearing pending Diaz’s appeal of those convictions. The government and defense counsel indicated there was no objection. Diaz made another motion “to loose D’Ine from this illegal captivity.” The district court denied his motion.