Court Opinion

ID: 9953232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 17:01:46.608146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:46.917413
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12218    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12218
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       EDWARD TREISBACK,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-00027-RWS-JCF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12218      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 03/21/2024      Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-12218

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, AND ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               In 2015, a federal jury convicted Edward Treisback of two
       child pornography offenses, and the district court sentenced him to
       a total of 100 months’ imprisonment followed by 10 years of super-
       vised release. The conditions of supervised release required,
       among other things, that Mr. Treisback report to the probation of-
       fice in the district to which he was released within 72 hours, and
       that he register as a sex offender in any state in which he resides,
       works, is a student, or was convicted of a qualifying offense. See
       D.E. 82 at 3–5. The district court found in 2023 that he failed to
       comply with these conditions (among others) and revoked his su-
       pervised release.
               Mr. Treisback appeals that decision on two grounds. First,
       he asserts that the district court clearly erred in finding that he did
       not report to the requisite probation office within 72 hours of re-
       lease, because the government did not present any evidence re-
       garding whether he reported in the Northern District of Florida
       (where he was released) as opposed to the Northern District of
       Georgia (his supervision jurisdiction). Second, he asserts that the
       district court clearly erred in finding that he did not register as a sex
       offender, because the government only put forth evidence that he
       failed to register as a sex offender in Georgia as opposed to North
       Carolina. We affirm.
USCA11 Case: 23-12218      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 03/21/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-12218               Opinion of the Court                          3

                                          I
              We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release
       for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 112
       (11th Cir. 1994). But we review the district court’s factual findings
       only for clear error. See United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318
       (11th Cir. 1993). To be clearly erroneous, the finding of the district
       court must leave us with a “definite and firm conviction that a mis-
       take has been committed.” United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621,
       624 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). “Where there are
       two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice be-
       tween them cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Sain-
       gerard, 621 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omit-
       ted). Although a district court is permitted to draw reasonable in-
       ferences from the evidence, it cannot make factual findings based
       on speculation. See United States v. Philidor, 717 F.3d 883, 885 (11th
       Cir. 2013).
                                         II
               A term of supervised release may be revoked if the district
       court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that “the defendant
       violated a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
       The preponderance of the evidence standard “simply requires the
       trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable
       than its nonexistence.” United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325, 1331
       (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-12218      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12218

                                        III
             Here, Mr. Treisback has failed to show that the district court
       abused its discretion in revoking his supervised release, or that its
       revocation was based upon clearly erroneous findings.
               Regarding Mr. Treisback’s failure to report to probation, the
       totality of the evidence—including the “Notice of Release and Ar-
       rival” and Gail Anderson’s testimony—support a reasonable infer-
       ence that Mr. Treisback failed to report a federal probation office
       in the Northern District of Georgia within 72 hours of his release
       from prison, despite knowing that he had been instructed to do so.
       Although Mr. Treisback contends that he was only required to re-
       port to a probation office in the Northern District of Florida, the
       “Notice of Release and Arrival,” which he signed, indicated that he
       would be released to the community of Clayton, Georgia, and pro-
       vided him with the addresses of both probation offices in the
       Northern District of Georgia. Moreover, Ms. Anderson testified
       that she picked Mr. Treisback up in Coleman, Florida, on the day
       of his release from prison and immediately drove him to her home
       in North Carolina, further supporting the district court’s finding
       that Mr. Treisback did not report to probation in either district. Ms.
       Anderson further testified that she called the probation office in At-
       lanta on Mr. Treisback’s behalf and was instructed that he report
       to the office immediately. As found by the district court, Mr.
       Treisback not only failed to do so within 72 hours, but he also failed
       to report to any office for over three weeks after his release from
       prison. We are not left with a definite or firm conviction that the
       district court erred in so finding.
USCA11 Case: 23-12218     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 03/21/2024    Page: 5 of 5

       23-12218               Opinion of the Court                        5

               Similarly, the court did not clearly err in finding that Mr.
       Treisback failed to register as a sex offender. The totality of the
       evidence supports a reasonable inference that Mr. Treisback never
       registered as a sex offender in Georgia despite being required to do
       so based on his residence and/or work in Georgia following his re-
       lease from prison. The district court’s finding was adequately sup-
       ported by the “Notice of Release and Arrival,” Ms. Anderson’s tes-
       timony regarding Mr. Treisback’s living situation, and the testi-
       mony of Probation Officer Quiana Whitson.
                                        IV
              Based on the foregoing, the district court did not make
       clearly erroneous findings and did not abuse its discretion in revok-
       ing Mr. Treisback’s supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.