Court Opinion

ID: 9491729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:21:54.773886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:54.584447
License: Public Domain

SILER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. It was up to the sentencing court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Strager violated a condition of his probation. See United States v. Lowenstein, 108 F.3d 80, 85 (6th Cir.1997). We review the revocation for an abuse of discretion. Id. Although the majority indicates that the defendant was not given any notice that he was in violation of the conditions of his probation, the record indicates that the probation officer filed a petition for a summons to be issued for Strager to appear before the court for a violation hearing. Subsequently, at the hearing, the court asked the defendant whether he received a copy of the supplemental violation report, and counsel indicated that it had been received.
The defendant had ample opportunity at his probation revocation hearing to advise the court that he would comply with the electronic monitoring condition of his probation, but he did not. He put on no evidence.
This court in Lowenstein found that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to revoke the defendant’s supervised release for making harassing phone calls to a government attorney. Therefore, I would also find that there was no abuse of discretion here under the circumstances of this case.