US v. William Johnson, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. WILLIAM HORACE JOHNSON, JR., Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00178-BO-1)
March 26, 2010
April 20, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Paul K. Sun, Jr., ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: William Horace Johnson, Jr., appeals from the district
court's judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 22 months in prison. primary appellate contentions: Johnson presents two
first, he challenges the court's
revocation of supervised release, contending that it erred in admitting hearing; unreliable and, second, hearsay he testimony that at the the revocation gave an
inadequate explanation for the revocation sentence, rendering it plainly unreasonable. As explained below, we affirm.
I. In District August of 1997, North Johnson Carolina was of convicted extortion in by the Eastern
communication, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 875(b), and was subsequently sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment, plus 36 months of supervised release. In addition to the standard
conditions of supervised release -- such as working regularly at a lawful occupation and refraining from controlled substances -- the court imposed special conditions of supervised release,
including mental health and drug treatment and participation in a residential reentry program. In November 2007, Johnson was released from custody and began serving on supervised release. 2 To abide by the conditions
("Bannum Place"), a residential reentry center in Wilmington, North Carolina. He also secured employment with a Wilmington
restaurant and participated in a mental health treatment program at Wilmington's Trinity Wellness Center. In June 2008, Johnson's probation officer, Kevin Connolley, moved to revoke supervised release, asserting that Johnson had violated several of his release conditions. More specifically,
Connolley alleged that Johnson had missed multiple appointments with his therapist; had been fired from his job; and had used crack cocaine on several occasions. On June 18, 2008, at the
conclusion of a revocation hearing, the district court found that Johnson had committed each of the alleged violations and revoked supervised release. The court imposed a 40-day
revocation sentence, to be followed by 24 months of supervised release under the conditions it had initially imposed. On July 11, 2008, Johnson was released from custody and began serving to his second Place, term of supervised his therapy release. program, He and
attempted to obtain lawful employment. later, however, Probation Officer
Less than two months again moved to
revoke Johnson's supervised release, alleging that Johnson had violated his release conditions by (1) failing to abide by the rules and conditions of Bannum Place (the "rules violation"); 3
violation"); and (3) failing to participate in a mental health treatment program (the "therapy violation"). the rules violation, Connolley asserted With respect to that Johnson was
discharged from Bannum Place in August 2008 after he refused to follow a staff member's instructions. As to the employment
violation, Connolley alleged that he instructed Johnson -- who had been without work for nearly three months -- to apply for employment at several fast-food restaurants in Wilmington, but that Johnson failed to do so because he considered such work "demeaning" and refused "to work around black people." J.A. 36. 1
Finally, Connolley maintained that Johnson committed the therapy violation Wellness included Violation by missing a scheduled on session 20, a with 2008. Supervised Chapter 7 his Trinity Connolley Release of the
August motion he
revocation by which
Sentencing Guidelines to calculate Johnson's advisory Guidelines range as 8 to 14 months. 2
Citations herein to "J.A. ___" refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal. Chapter 7 of the Guidelines -- entitled "Violations of Probation and Supervised Release" -- includes, inter alia, a "Revocation Table" suggesting an appropriate term of imprisonment based on a defendant's criminal history category and the grade of his supervised release violation. See USSG § 7B1.4(a). Each of Johnson's three alleged violations is a (Continued) 4
On hearing release.
February on the After
supervised testimony to
presented had committed
Connolley's the three
violations. inadmissible maintained alleged behavior Place
Asserting that Connolley's testimony consisted of hearsay, Johnson lacked and objected thereto. knowledge of Johnson of the
Connolley conduct with
Johnson's Bannum of
Connolley's testimony infringed on his right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. erroneously asserted that In response, the prosecution revocation proceedings "are
appropriately treated . . . under the relaxed rules of evidence which permit the presentation of hearsay and summary evidence." J.A. 4950. The prosecution thus maintained that Connolley
could properly testify to Johnson's conduct in all instances.
"Grade C" violation, the lowest of the three grades, see id. § 7B1.1(a)(3), resulting in a Guidelines range of 8 to 14 months when combined with his criminal history category of VI, see id. § 7B1.4(a). Notwithstanding this advisory range, Johnson was also subject to a two-year statutory maximum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
Without explanation, the district court overruled Johnson's hearsay objection, and Officer Connolley proceeded to testify in support of the three violations. Relying on reports from the
Bannum Place staff, Connolley testified that Johnson committed the rules violation when he refused "to allow staff to review a receipt from a purchase he had made." J.A. 50. Connolley
further testified, based on the therapist's account of Johnson's conduct, Wellness Notably, that Johnson missed a scheduled the session therapy at Trinity
violation. of the
employment violation, testifying that he personally instructed Johnson to apply for employment at specific restaurants in the Wilmington area, and that Johnson had refused. Connolley's testimony -- the prosecution Based solely on no other
evidence, and Johnson neither testified nor presented any other evidence -- the court found that Johnson had committed each of the three violations and revoked his term of supervised release. The district court thereafter heard argument from the
parties regarding sentencing.
In that regard, the prosecution
maintained that Johnson was "psychologically distorted" and had refused medication and proper treatment, rendering him "as J.A.
dangerous . . . as he was when he was first incarcerated." 67. of
The Government thus requested a statutory maximum sentence 24 months, notwithstanding 6 Johnson's advisory Guidelines
stressed the "technical" nature of the violations and asked the court instead to "give [Johnson] credit for time served and
terminate supervised release."
Id. at 72.
Johnson himself then
spoke, emphasizing his history of mental illness and his various health problems. He asserted that the Bureau of Prisons (the
"BOP") had neglected his mental health needs when he served his initial sentence and maintained that he likely would have
received proper treatment had he been imprisoned at the Butner Federal Carolina. Correctional Complex ("Butner") in Butner, North
Johnson also explained that he suffered from glaucoma He concluded by informing
that had not been properly treated.
the court that he was "struggling" and "need[ed] some relief." Id. at 75. Following Johnson's statement, the district court explained that it would try to "do something positive" for him. J.A. 77.
The court referenced Johnson's health problems and, in response to his claim that the "BOP has absolutely done me no good," explained that it would "try to change that and put you in a situation where you get somebody to pay attention to you and you get some care." Id. The court then imposed a 22-month
revocation sentence -- which equaled the balance of Johnson's second term of supervised release -- and recommended that he serve his prison term at Butner. 7 The court also recommended
that Johnson "receive mental health evaluation, mental health treatment, and counseling and medical treatment for his current medical problems." Johnson jurisdiction § 1291. Id. at 7879. noticed to 18 this U.S.C. appeal, and and we 28 possess U.S.C.
II. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's
decision to revoke supervised release.
See United States v. In conducting such
Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999).
a review, we examine the court's findings of fact -- including a finding that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release -- for clear error. 586 F.3d 63, 67 (1st Cir. See United States v. Oquendo-Rivera, 2009). We review for abuse of
discretion a district court's evidentiary rulings and subject them to harmless error review. 587 F.3d 625, 637 (4th Cir. 2009). We review a sentence imposed after the revocation of See United States v. Johnson,
supervised release to determine if it is "plainly unreasonable." See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). "In determining whether a sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first decide whether the sentence is unreasonable," applying the same procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in 8
reviewing an initial sentence.
Id. at 438.
If the revocation
sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable, "we must then decide whether the sentence is plainly
unreasonable, relying on the definition of `plain' that we use in our `plain' error analysis." Id. at 439.
III. A. In court's this appeal, to Johnson revoke first term challenges of the district release,
contending that the court abused its discretion by admitting and considering Connolley's testimony unreliable testimony. was predicated hearsay Johnson on the evidence -- namely, that Officer
various third parties and thus contravened Johnson's right to confront adverse witnesses. Revocation hearings are deemed to be informal proceedings, in which the rules of evidence need not be strictly observed. See Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3). Nevertheless, because such
proceedings may result in a significant loss of liberty, the Supreme Court has of determined process, that they must a satisfy minimum "to v.
requirements confront and
Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972). 9
Federal Rule of Criminal
incorporates this limited right of confrontation, providing in pertinent part that a supervised releasee must be accorded the opportunity at a revocation hearing "to question any adverse witness, unless the judge determines that the interest of
justice does not require the witness to appear." P. 32.1(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Fed. R. Crim.
Pursuant to Rule 32.1, "the court should
apply a balancing test at the hearing itself when considering the releasee's asserted right to cross-examine witnesses" and should "balance the person's interest in the constitutionally guaranteed right to confrontation against the government's good cause for denying note Rule a it." Fed. R. Crim. we may have only if it P. 32.1 advisory that,
committee's pursuant evidence to in
(2002). 32.1, a
recognized consider is
reliable." Cir. 1982). Here,
United States v. McCallum, 677 F.2d 1024, 1026 (4th
conducted a Rule 32.1 analysis.
In authorizing the prosecution
to present its case through the testimony of Officer Connolley -- predicated on the erroneous advice of the prosecutor -- the court did not assess of whether hearsay "the interest See of justice" Fed. R. warranted Crim. P.
Nor did the court determine that the out10
Connolley's McCallum, 677
testimony F.2d at
Accordingly, the court necessarily abused its discretion when it admitted Connolley's hearsay testimony. See United States v.
Delfino, 510 F.3d 468, 470 (4th Cir. 2007) ("A district court abuses its discretion when it . . . fails to consider judicially recognized . . . ."). Nevertheless, the evidentiary error was necessarily factors constraining its exercise of discretion
harmless, in the circumstances of this case, for the prosecution presented employment sufficient violation. non-hearsay More evidence to support the
testified -- based on his first-hand knowledge -- that Johnson (1) had been unemployed for nearly three months prior to the filing of the revocation motion; and (2) refused to apply for jobs at local restaurants, despite being instructed by the
probation office to do so.
This evidence sufficed to prove that
Johnson had failed to work regularly at a lawful occupation, as his conditions of release required. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
(authorizing revocation of supervised release if district court finds by preponderance that violation occurred). although the of court erred the in failing to make Accordingly, the Rule 32.1
reliable and whether the interest of justice necessitated its 11
admission, the court did not clearly err in finding that Johnson had violated a condition of supervised release; thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Johnson's supervised release. See Fed. or R. Crim. P. 52(a) does ("Any error, defect,
rights must be disregarded."). B. Finally, Johnson challenges his revocation sentence as
The district court imposed a 22-month
revocation sentence, less than the 24-month statutory maximum but more than the 8to 14-month range advised by the
Johnson maintains that the court procedurally erred
by offering an insufficient explanation for the above-Guidelines sentence. plainly sentence court's In assessing whether Johnson's revocation sentence is unreasonable, is we must taking in first into determine account such a whether the
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 54647 (4th Cir. 2010). Indeed, our inquiry "takes into a whether a revocation sentence is
concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences." v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th a Cir. United States (internal court must
provide a sufficient explanation of its sentence to enable an effective reasonableness review, "this statement need not be as specific as has been required for departing from a traditional guidelines omitted). range." Id. at 657 (internal quotation marks
So long as the court presents some explanation for
the sentence, thereby "provid[ing] us an assurance that [it] considered the § 3553(a) factors with regard to the particular defendant," we must defer to the sentencing decision. also Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. Here, the district court provided a sufficient explanation of Johnson's 22-month referenced revocation Johnson's sentence. health The court and Id.; see
observed that it would "try to do something positive" by placing Johnson where he could "get some care." J.A. 77. Indeed, after
Johnson complained that the BOP had neglected his mental health during his initial term of imprisonment, the court recommended that Johnson serve his revocation sentence at Butner, where he could receive appropriate mental health evaluations, treatment, and counseling. Moreover, the court referenced Johnson's
physical health problems, recommending that he receive proper treatment for glaucoma and other health issues. The court thus properly predicated Johnson's 22-month
revocation sentence on his need for medical treatment and care, a consideration squarely authorized by § 3553(a). 13 See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(D); court to
§ 3583(e) of
Johnson does not contend that the court
failed to consider other pertinent sentencing factors (or that it considered impermissible factors). Johnson's revocation sentence is not In these circumstances, unreasonable and thus
cannot be plainly unreasonable.
See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. 3
Johnson presents two additional sentencing contentions that we can reject without prolonged discussion. First, he maintains that the district court procedurally erred because it failed to consider his advisory Guidelines range. Although a sentencing court must consider the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines when imposing a revocation sentence, see Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439, the court "need not engage in ritualistic incantation" in order to satisfy its burden, see United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). So long as the advisory range was put before it, "[c]onsideration is implicit in the court's ultimate ruling." Davis, 53 F.3d at 642. Because Officer Connolley's motion for revocation accurately calculated the advisory Guidelines range, the court did not err in this regard. Second, Johnson asserts that his above-Guidelines revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable, given the "technical" nature of his violations. The district court, however, predicated its chosen sentence on Johnson's need for therapy and medical treatment, and a court may properly consider a defendant's rehabilitative needs in determining the length of a revocation sentence. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) (authorizing sentencing court to consider whether sentence provides defendant with needed medical care). Accordingly, the court did not substantively err when it imposed a 22-month sentence designed to enable Johnson to receive proper treatment.
IV. Pursuant to the foregoing, we reject Johnson's appellate contentions and affirm. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?