Court Opinion

ID: 9367457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 20:00:40.717917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.515014
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13702    Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13702
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       DAVID L. JONES, JR.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-00020-MW-MAF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13702     Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-13702

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              David Jones, Jr. appeals the revocation of his supervised re-
       lease. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). On appeal, Jones argues that the
       District Court abused its discretion in revoking his supervised re-
       lease based on its findings that he violated the conditions of his
       supervised release as alleged in Violations 3 and 4 in the probation
       officer’s petition. He also argues that even if he had committed
       those violations, he did not do so willfully.
              In 2012, Jones was charged with two counts involving co-
       caine possession and distribution, 21 U.S.C. § 846, in the United
       States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Jones
       pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to Count One, which
       was for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than
       five hundred grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
              In August 2012, Jones was adjudicated guilty on Count One
       and sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment, supervised release
       for eight years following the term of imprisonment, and a fine. In
       August 2015, Jones admitted to five violations of his supervised
       release, so the conditions of supervised release were modified,
       and he was confined to home detention for six months. In March
       2018, Jones admitted to seven violations of his supervised release,
       so the conditions were modified a second time and he was again
       confined to home detention, this time for two months. In March
USCA11 Case: 22-13702     Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023    Page: 3 of 4

       22-13702               Opinion of the Court                        3

       2022, Jones admitted to one violation of his supervised release, so
       the conditions were modified for a third time, requiring comple-
       tion of community service hours.
              Finally, on October 26, 2022, Jones admitted to one viola-
       tion of his supervised release and denied four other alleged viola-
       tions, for which the District Court revoked Jones’s supervised re-
       lease and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment. Specifi-
       cally, Jones admitted to unlawfully possessing or using a con-
       trolled substance in violation of his supervised release (Violation
       1). Though he denied the allegations, the District Court also
       found that Jones failed to follow instructions of the probation of-
       ficer (Violation 3) and failed to notify the probation officer of any
       change in residence (Violation 4).
              At the revocation hearing, before the Court accepted
       Jones’s admission as to Violation 1 for testing positive for cocaine
       and marijuana use, the Court informed Jones that for that viola-
       tion alone, he faced a maximum penalty of two years in prison
       and a guideline range of five to eleven months’ imprisonment.
       Jones did not object to the Court’s findings of fact or the sentence
       imposed.
              We review a district court’s revocation of supervised re-
       lease for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Cunningham,
       607 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010). A court may revoke a de-
       fendant’s term of supervised release and impose a prison sentence
       when it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defend-
       ant violated a condition of his supervised release. Id.; 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 22-13702     Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-13702

       § 3583(e)(3). The preponderance of the evidence standard re-
       quires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is
       more probable than its nonexistence. United States v. Almedina,
       686 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2012).
              The district court only needs to find one violation of a su-
       pervised release condition to support a revocation. See United
       States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014) (deter-
       mining that a district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
       the defendant’s supervised release, despite his argument that he
       did not commit two of the five alleged violations of the terms of
       his supervised release, because he pled guilty to the other alleged
       violations). The district court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s
       supervised release is supported adequately by one alleged viola-
       tion, so a possible error in consideration of other allegations is
       harmless. United States v. Brown, 656 F.2d 1204, 1207 (5th Cir.
       Unit A Sept. 1981).
              Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in re-
       voking Jones’s supervised release because he admitted to commit-
       ting Violation 1, which carried a guideline range term of impris-
       onment above his three-month sentence. The District Court only
       needed to find one violation to support the revocation, so any
       possible error in consideration of the other allegations was harm-
       less.
             AFFIRMED.