Court Opinion

ID: 2964113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:48.105871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.882361
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        May 30, 1996            [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2252

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ADEDAPO OMISORE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, Chief U.S. District Judge]
                                         _________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Norman S. Zalkind and Zalkind, Rodriguez,  Lunt & Duncan on  brief
            _________________     __________________________________
        for appellant.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Defendant-appellant  Adedapo Omisore
                      ___________

            appeals  from  the  district  court  judgment   revoking  his

            supervised release.  We affirm.

                      I.  Due Process
                          ___________

                      Omisore argues that the district court violated due

            process by  failing to  make written findings  explaining its

            revocation  decision and  by  denying his  motion to  inspect

            certain probation records.  Neither argument is availing.   

                      A.  Written Findings
                          ________________

                      Omisore  contends that the district court's failure

            to express in writing "the evidence relied on and reasons for

            revoking   parole"   violated   the   minimum   due   process

            requirements established by Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471,
                                        ________    ______

            489 (1972).  Because Omisore did not seek a written statement

            from  the district court, we consider  his argument under the

            "plain error" standard.  See United States v. Whalen, No. 95-
                                     ___ _____________    ______

            1816, slip op. at 4 (1st Cir. April 25, 1996).  

                      "Virtually every court to have considered the issue

            has held that 'oral findings, if recorded or transcribed, can

            satisfy  the requirements  of Morrissey  when those  findings
                                          _________

            create a  record sufficiently complete to  advise the parties

            and  the reviewing court of the reasons for the revocation of

            supervised release and the evidence the decision maker relied

            upon.'" Whalen,  slip op. at 4  - 5 (quoting  United States v
                    ______                                _____________

            Copeland,  20  F.3d  412, 414  (11th  Cir.  1994).   For  the
            ________

                                         -2-

            following   reasons,   we  conclude   that   the   record  is

            sufficiently complete to advise the parties and this court of

            the reasons for  the revocation and the  evidence relied upon

            by the district court.

                      It is  clear from the transcript  of the revocation

            hearing  that  the  court  viewed the  dispositive  issue  as

            whether or not Omisore's conduct on the evening of August 14,

            1995, violated  the  terms of  his supervised  release.   The

            government  presented  evidence  only concerning  the  August

            arrest and excluded  evidence on  the charge  of receiving  a

            stolen  vehicle.   When  the defense  attorney remarked  that

            there was no evidence that Omisore had passed a stolen credit

            card,  the court  responded,  "Well,  I  think I  have  heard

            plenty."    When the  defense attorney was  making his  final

            argument  at the close of the hearing, the court directed him

            to "[c]oncentrate on the credit card."

                      Within this  context,  the court's  stated  finding

            that  Omisore  had violated  the  conditions  of his  release

            contained  within it  an  implicit finding  that Omisore  had

            attempted  to  purchase  goods  with a  stolen  credit  card.

            Accordingly, although  it would  have been preferable  if the

            district court had more  clearly articulated its findings and

            reasons  for  revoking  Omisore's  supervised   release,  its

            failure to do so did not constitute plain error.

                                         -3-

                      B.  Denial of Motion to Inspect Probation Records
                          _____________________________________________

                      Omisore argues  that  in denying  his  motion,  the

            district court violated his  due process right to "disclosure

            . .  . of evidence against him."  Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489.
                                              _________

            See  also Fed.  R.  Crim. P.  32.1(a)(2)(B).   The  probation
            ___  ____

            records were  not used as evidence  against Omisore, however.

            The  technical violations of failure  to timely report to the

            probation  officer  were  continued  by  the  district  court

            without  a  finding.     Moreover,  the  court  directed  the

            probation department  to supply  the dates of  contact, which

            were  recited  in  court.     The  evidence  against  Omisore

            consisted of testimony by witnesses at the revocation hearing

            regarding  Omisore's use  of  a  stolen  credit card.    That

            evidence was fully disclosed to Omisore.

                      Omisore   argues   that  the   testimony  regarding

            frequent meetings  between Omisore and members  of the FOCTF,

            despite denials that Omisore was being used  as an informant,

            "should  have   alerted  the  court  to  the  fact  that  the

            chronological entries, which  logged the probation  officer's

            supervision  of   Mr.  Omisore,   may  well   have  contained

            information which  corroborated Mr. Omisore's  contentions or

            impeached the  witnesses or  both."  Omisore  never expressly

            argued the purposes for which he sought the records, however.

            Under those circumstances, the district court did not  err in

            denying Omisore's  motion.

                                         -4-

                      II.  Merits of Revocation Decision 
                           _____________________________

                      "[O]n  appeal [from a  decision revoking supervised

            release], [this court] consider[s]  the evidence in the light

            most favorable to the government." United States v. Portalla,
                                               _____________    ________

            985 F.2d 621, 622 (1st Cir. 1993).  Viewed in this light, and

            recognizing  "the  district  court's  broad  legal  power  to

            determine  witness credibility,"  id.,  the  record  contains
                                              ___

            sufficient evidence to  meet the "preponderance of  evidence"

            standard.

                      Omisore   argues  that  "[n]othing  in  the  record

            establishes that  Mr. Omisore possessed or  actually used the

            stolen  credit  card."   The  record  contains the  following

            evidence that Omisore was the one who passed the stolen card.

            Ruth Corliss, the cashier, identified Omisore in court as the

            man  who  gave  her  the  card.    Although she  subsequently

            indicated  some slight uncertainty,  she never  confirmed the

            defense  attorney's  suggestion  that  another  man  was with

            Omisore and gave her  the card.   Reham Pasha Ahmad, a  store

            detective, testified that Omisore  identified himself as  the

            owner  of  the card  and gave  a  social security  number and

            birthdate in  an attempt  to prove  ownership.   The district

            court did  not clearly err in finding  that Omisore attempted

            to use a stolen  credit card, in violation of  the conditions

                                         -5-

            of his supervised release. There was  no abuse of discretion.

                      The  district  court  judgment  revoking  Omisore's

            supervised release is summarily affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                                  _________ ________   ___

                                         -6-