Court Opinion

ID: 9353892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 01:00:18.527649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:09:23.809175
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60662    Document: 00516608829        Page: 1   Date Filed: 01/12/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                                                         FILED
                                                                  January 12, 2023
                                No. 21-60662
                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                         Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                         Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                    versus

   Brenda Sensing,

                                                      Defendant—Appellant,

                           consolidated with
                                   _

                                No. 21-60691
                                     _

   United States of America,

                                                         Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                    versus

   Dennis Sensing,

                                                      Defendant—Appellant.

                 Appeals from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Mississippi
                   USDC Nos. 3:18-CR-154-1, 3:19-CR-40-1
Case: 21-60662         Document: 00516608829             Page: 2       Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                          No. 21-60662
                                        c/w No. 21-60691

   Before Stewart, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Brenda and Dennis Sensing challenge the revocation of their
   supervised release, arguing that the district court violated a number of their
   statutory and constitutional rights during three informal “show cause”
   hearings. But because the Sensings each admitted to at least one violation of
   their conditions of supervised release at their formal revocation hearing, and
   because each admitted violation independently justifies the court’s
   revocation decision, any errors during the show-cause hearings were
   harmless. We therefore AFFIRM.
                                                I
          The Sensings both pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United
   States, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, by committing healthcare fraud and by paying and
   receiving illegal remunerations. Upon conviction, the Western District of
   Tennessee sentenced them to time served and two years of supervised
   release. Relevant to this appeal, the Sensings were also ordered to pay
   $627,267.25 in restitution.
          The Sensings’ supervised release was transferred to the Northern
   District of Mississippi. See 18 U.S.C. § 3605. There, the U.S. Probation
   Office filed a report with the district court alleging that both Sensings had
   violated the conditions of their release. Brenda, for instance, had pleaded
   guilty to petit larceny, opened new lines of credit without approval, and failed
   to notify her probation officer about her receipt and use of student-loan
   money. And Dennis had opened new lines of credit without prior approval.
   The Sensings’ probation officer recommended that the court hold a “Show
   Cause Hearing” as a result of these violations. The court agreed and,
   intermittently over the next year and a half, held three such hearings.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 21-60662      Document: 00516608829         Page: 3     Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                     No. 21-60662
                                   c/w No. 21-60691

          At the first show-cause hearing, the court verified that the Sensings
   had, in fact, violated the conditions of supervised release as alleged by the
   probation officer. The court also focused on the outstanding amount owed in
   restitution. After questioning the Sensings about their assets and income, the
   court increased the amount the Sensings were to pay monthly and ordered
   the Sensings to turn over all the money in their bank account and to sell one
   of their vehicles. The court also encouraged the Sensings to voluntarily agree
   to extend their term of supervised release, which they did. At the second and
   third hearings, the court focused solely on the Sensings’ financial situation
   with an eye toward cutting their expenses, especially their monthly car
   payments. The court ultimately ordered the Sensings to sell two of their
   vehicles and to not make any major purchases.
          Three weeks after the third hearing, the Sensings’ probation officer
   moved the court to revoke the Sensings’ supervised release on the basis of
   the original alleged violations and, additionally, the Sensings’ failure to sell
   their vehicles as ordered by the court during the show-cause hearings. The
   court held a formal revocation hearing and appointed counsel, see Fed. R.
   Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2), who argued, among other things, that the district court
   lacked authority to conduct the show-cause hearings without counsel present
   or to order the Sensings to sell their vehicles absent a showing that they were
   behind on their payments. The Sensings admitted, however, that they each
   had violated at least some conditions of their supervised release.
          After hearing the admissions and evidence, the court found that the
   Sensings had violated the conditions of their supervised release, as well as the
   court’s show-cause orders to sell their vehicles, and it revoked their
   supervised release on this basis. Upon hearing mitigation evidence, however,
   the court declined to impose a term of imprisonment and instead sentenced
   the Sensings to three more years of supervised release.

                                          3
Case: 21-60662      Document: 00516608829         Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                     No. 21-60662
                                   c/w No. 21-60691

          The Sensings appealed the revocation, and we granted their motions
   to consolidate their appeals.
                                            II
          “We review for abuse of discretion a decision to revoke supervised
   release.” United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995). “A
   district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a
   preponderance of the evidence that a condition of release has been violated.”
   Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We apply the harmless-error rule to
   revocation judgments, disregarding “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or
   variance that does not affect substantial rights.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a);
   see United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 2016); United States
   v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 332 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. English, 400
   F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). “Where there is an adequate basis for the
   district court’s discretionary action of revoking [supervised release], the
   reviewing court need not decide a claim of error as to other grounds that had
   been advanced as a cause for revocation.” English, 400 F.3d at 276 (quoting
   McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219 n.3).
          On appeal, the Sensings raise a number of statutory and constitutional
   challenges to the district court’s show-cause hearings and related orders. But
   they do not contest that they violated at least some of the conditions of their
   release, any of which is sufficient to justify revocation. See 18 U.S.C.
   § 3853(e)(3). Therefore, even if there were deficiencies in the show-cause
   hearings, such errors were harmless with respect to the court’s ultimate
   decision to revoke their supervised release. See McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219
   (affirming revocation, while rejecting legal challenges to the revocation
   hearing as harmless, where defendant did not contest that he violated the
   conditions of his supervised release).
          AFFIRMED.

                                            4