Court Opinion

ID: 9925534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-20 21:00:34.636108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:59.944895
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4338      Doc: 24         Filed: 01/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4338

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MONTELLO MARQUETTE HOOD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:10-cr-00707-JFA-1)

        Submitted: January 4, 2024                                        Decided: January 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jenny D. Smith,
        Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney,
        Jonathan Scott Matthews, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4338         Doc: 24          Filed: 01/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

                  Montello Marquette Hood appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his

        supervised release and sentencing him to time served. Finding no reversible error, we

        affirm.

                  To revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation of

        supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). “We

        review a district court’s factual findings underlying a revocation of supervised release for

        clear error and its ultimate decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for abuse of

        discretion.” United States v. Cohen, 63 F.4th 250, 254 (4th Cir.) (cleaned up), cert. denied,

        144 S. Ct. 165 (2023). When revoking a defendant’s supervised release, a district court

        must “adequately demonstrate for us the evidence on which it relied . . . so that we may

        understand its reasons for revoking supervised release.” United States v. Patterson, 957

        F.3d 426, 434 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). A district court need not issue a written

        decision so long as “the transcript and record compiled before the trial judge enable the

        reviewing court to determine the basis of the trial court’s decision.” Id. at 433 (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

                  Hood first contends that the district court’s factual findings are insufficient to allow

        meaningful appellate review. While the court’s ruling may have been imprecise, it is

        adequate for our consideration. We believe there are two plausible ways to interpret the

        district court’s ruling. First, it could have considered the two assessments at Catawba Area

        Mental Health Center (“Catawba”) to be one incident and thus was referring to that and

        Hood’s failure to attend an appointment at Three Trees Center for Change (“Three Trees”).

                                                         2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4338       Doc: 24         Filed: 01/19/2024      Pg: 3 of 5

        Second, the court could have discounted the Three Trees incident and thus was referring

        solely to the two Catawba assessments. These incidents were close in time, and all were

        discussed at the two hearings. And while the district court’s ruling at the end of the second

        hearing was brief, the court was engaged throughout the two hearings, listening to Hood,

        responding to Hood’s claims, informing Hood when the court had issues with his

        assertions, and attempting to accommodate Hood’s legitimate concerns. Thus, we have an

        adequate record to review.

               Relying on Cohen, Hood next argues that the district court erred in revoking his

        supervised release because he did not fail to participate in treatment and that the district

        court impermissibly conflated participation with perfect compliance. In Cohen, we held

        that a district court erred in finding that the defendant “violated the condition requiring him

        to participate in a sex offender treatment program by failing to follow the rules of that

        program.” 63 F.4th at 254 (internal quotation marks omitted). While we recognized “that

        at some point noncompliance with rules may become so frequent or severe as to preclude

        further participation,” we emphasized that “the treatment provider itself did not consider

        [the] rules violation to be disqualifying.” Id. at 255.

               Here, by contrast, the staff at Catawba found Hood’s conduct to preclude further

        participation, twice instructing him to leave his initial assessment. While Hood selects

        portions of the record where the district court agreed with some of his concerns, it is clear

        by the end of the second hearing that the district court did not find Hood credible. The

        district court sought to mollify Hood’s concern about signing Catawba’s terms without

        reviewing them, but Hood then shifted into arguing that he did not need treatment. When

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4338      Doc: 24         Filed: 01/19/2024      Pg: 4 of 5

        the district court noted Hood had shifted his position, Hood went into a lengthy discussion

        of his understanding of “treatment” versus “counseling.” As the parties began discussing

        Hood’s employment, Hood made bizarre claims that he had slept with Queen Elizabeth,

        had smoked marijuana with President Obama, and had donated $30,000 to then-candidate

        Obama’s campaign. Hood then brought up concerns about transportation and giving his

        employer sufficient notice for his appointment at Three Trees, but he refused to commit to

        attending sessions when the district court tried to address these concerns.

               Hood’s behavior did not improve at the second hearing. When the district court

        asked Hood if he admitted or denied the probation officer’s allegations, Hood repeated his

        claims about transportation and notice at Three Trees and brought up the fact that he could

        not afford treatment. The district court twice asked Hood if he would consent to treatment

        if the Government would pay for it, and both times Hood went into a lengthy discussion of

        other considerations. After observing Hood’s demeanor and listening to Hood over the

        course of two hearings, the district court found Hood not credible and accepted the

        probation officer’s account that Hood refused to participate in mental health treatment at

        Catawba, prompting them to demand he leave, and failing to attend the session at Three

        Trees. This conclusion is further supported by Hood’s conduct at the hearings, as Hood

        repeatedly deflected and refused to agree to attend treatment whenever the district court

        sought to address his stated concerns.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4338      Doc: 24         Filed: 01/19/2024      Pg: 5 of 5

               Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     5