Court Opinion

ID: 9908448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 19:01:03.920313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:11.534315
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5017     Document: 010110965418       Date Filed: 12/08/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         December 8, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-5017
                                                   (D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00011-GKF-1)
  KYLE WAYNE ISAACS,                                          (N.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**
                  _________________________________

       In 2008, Defendant-Appellant Kyle Wayne Isaacs pled guilty to possession

 with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii),

 and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes, 18 U.S.C.

 § 924(c)(1)(A). I R. 13. He was sentenced to 211 months’ imprisonment, later

 reduced to 190 months, and five years’ supervised release. Id. at 14–15, 48. While

 on supervised release, Mr. Isaacs violated several conditions, his supervised release

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
        **
           After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellate Case: 23-5017    Document: 010110965418        Date Filed: 12/08/2023    Page: 2

 was initially modified and subsequently revoked, and he was sentenced to an

 additional period of 24 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ supervised release. Id.

 at 49–54, 82–84. Mr. Isaacs’s appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief and seeks

 to withdraw due to lack of reasonable grounds for appeal. Aplt. Br. at 1–2; see

 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

 § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and

 dismiss the appeal.

                                         Background

       Mr. Isaacs began supervised release on September 22, 2021. I R. 49. In April

 2022, his supervised release was first modified to include 90 days’ home detention.

 Id. at 50. In December 2022, his supervised release was again modified to include a

 jail sanction from December 12, 2022, to January 9, 2023, after he tested positive for

 alcohol, THC, and methamphetamine use, and after two different women filed

 protective orders against him. Id. at 52–53. In each instance, Mr. Isaacs waived his

 right to a hearing and assistance of counsel and agreed to the modifications. Id. at

 51, 54.

       The day before Mr. Isaacs was set to surrender to U.S. Marshals for his jail

 sanction, he was arrested for domestic assault and battery with a deadly weapon

 against one of the women with a protective order against him. Id. at 77–78. As a

 result, Mr. Isaacs’s probation officer petitioned the court to revoke his supervised

 release based on the following violations: committing a crime (the domestic assault

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-5017    Document: 010110965418        Date Filed: 12/08/2023     Page: 3

 and battery), being untruthful with a probation officer and not following the officer’s

 instructions, and unlawfully possessing controlled substances. Id. at 56–58. Mr.

 Isaacs spent the time between his arrest on December 11, 2022, and his revocation

 hearing on February 16, 2023, in jail. II R. 22–23. At the revocation hearing, the

 district court revoked Mr. Isaacs’s previous supervised release after he admitted that

 he disobeyed probation officer instructions and tested positive for methamphetamine

 and THC, and after the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr.

 Isaacs committed a new violation of the law. I R. 82; II R. 26. Mr. Isaacs’s hearing

 counsel specifically requested that the outstanding jail sanction be revoked, and the

 district judge vacated it. II R. 22–23, 27. He was resentenced to 24 months’

 imprisonment and 36 months’ supervised release. I R. 83–84.

       Appealing from the district court’s revocation and new sentence, Mr. Isaacs

 and hearing counsel raised the following issues in a docketing statement: (1) the

 district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the jail sanction and (2) the government

 failed to prove that Mr. Isaacs committed domestic assault and battery at the

 revocation hearing. Docketing Statement, United States v. Isaacs, No. 23-5017 (10th

 Cir. Feb. 22, 2023). Mr. Isaacs’s hearing counsel subsequently withdrew, and new

 appellate counsel was appointed. Mr. Isaacs’s appellate counsel filed an Anders

 brief, stating the appeal was frivolous because Mr. Isaacs’s appeal of the district

 court order vacating the jail sanction could only hurt Mr. Isaacs by potentially

 increasing his existing prison sentence. Aplt. Br. at 1, 11, 13–14. The brief did not

 contest the sufficiency of the evidence to revoke supervised release. Mr. Isaacs was

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-5017    Document: 010110965418        Date Filed: 12/08/2023    Page: 4

 notified of his appellate counsel’s Anders brief and received paper copies, see 10th

 Cir. R. 46.4(B), but he has submitted no response.

       Upon receiving an Anders brief, we “conduct a full examination of the record

 to determine whether defendant’s claims are wholly frivolous.” United States v.

 Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005). If we agree with counsel, we will

 grant the request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

                                       Discussion

       We review a revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion, findings

 of fact for clear error, and legal questions de novo. United States v. Barela, 807 F.

 App’x 797, 799–800 (10th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Ruby, 706 F.3d 1221,

 1225 (10th Cir. 2013)). The burden of proof at a revocation hearing is a

 preponderance of the evidence. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700

 (2000); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). After reviewing the record, we conclude there are no

 nonfrivolous arguments for appeal.

       In the docketing statement, Mr. Isaacs argues the government failed to prove

 that he committed a new crime to justify revocation of his supervised release.

 Docketing Statement at 4. His appellate counsel did not revive this argument in the

 Anders brief1 and with good reason. The district court relied on the probation

 officer’s testimony and the police report from the December 11 incident to conclude

       1
        Issues raised in the docketing statement but omitted in the opening brief are
 waived. See Pino v. Higgs, 75 F.3d 1461, 1463 (10th Cir. 1996).
                                            4
Appellate Case: 23-5017     Document: 010110965418         Date Filed: 12/08/2023     Page: 5

 by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Isaacs committed assault and battery in

 violation of his supervised release. II R. 14–19.2 Mr. Isaacs’s counsel introduced no

 hard evidence showing that the government failed to meet its burden, only suggesting

 that police reports are sometimes unreliable. Id. at 20–22. Ample evidence supports

 the district court’s finding.

        Mr. Isaacs next argues that the district court lacked the authority to vacate the

 jail sanction on its own motion. Aplt. Br. at 11, 12–13. At the outset, we disregard

 “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights[.]”

 Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Any potential error here does not affect Mr. Isaacs’s

 substantial rights — in fact, raising this issue on appeal risks a potential increase to

 his existing sentence. But the court did not lack the authority to vacate the jail

 sanction. Mr. Isaacs characterizes the jail sanction as a revocation of supervised

 release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), when in fact the jail sanction was a modification of

 Mr. Isaacs’s supervised release, id. § 3583(e)(2).3 I R. 52–55 (referring to the jail

 sanction as a modification). Therefore, the subsequent revocation of Mr. Isaacs’s

 initial period of supervised release under § 3583(e)(3), and resentencing of Mr. Isaacs

 to 24 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ supervised release, replaced his previous

        2
          A condition of Mr. Isaacs’s supervised release was that he commit no
 additional federal, state, or local crimes. I R. 15.
        3
          Mr. Isaacs also argues the jail sanction was invalid. Aplt. Br. at 11–12. We
 need not reach this issue because the district court properly vacated it.
                                              5
Appellate Case: 23-5017    Document: 010110965418         Date Filed: 12/08/2023   Page: 6

 period of supervised release and its modifications including the jail sanction. I R.

 82–84.4

       We DISMISS the appeal and GRANT counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                             Circuit Judge

       4
          We note that the district court vacated the jail sanction upon Mr. Isaacs’s
 hearing counsel’s specific request, II R. 22–23, 27, and the invited-error doctrine
 likely forecloses this issue on appeal. See United States v. Moore, 30 F.4th 1021,
 1024 (10th Cir. 2022).
                                            6