US v. William Gutierrez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00279-CCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999634718].. [14-4856]

Appeal: 14-4856

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4856

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM GUTIERREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00279-CCB-1)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

August 5, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Julie L.B. Johnson,
Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4856

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William

Gutierrez

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 18 months’
imprisonment.

Gutierrez

contends

that

the

district

court

violated his due process rights by failing to adequately ensure
that

he

knowingly

and

voluntarily

conditions of supervised release.

admitted

to

violating

the

For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.
Because

Gutierrez

did

not

raise

any

objections

in

the

district court to the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry
before accepting his admission to violating the conditions of
supervised
Henderson

release,
v.

(explaining
release

United
plain

cannot

be

our

review

States,

error

133

is
S.

Ct.

review).

revoked

for

without

“A
a

plain
1121,

error.

See

1126-27

(2013)

defendant’s

full

hearing

supervised
unless

the

defendant knowingly and voluntarily admits to the allegations
against [him] and waives [his] rights under Rule 32.1 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”

United States v. Farrell,

393 F.3d 498, 500 (4th Cir. 2005).

A knowing and voluntary

waiver of the right to a full revocation hearing may be inferred
from

the

totality

of

the

circumstances

colloquy with the defendant.

and

without

a

formal

Id.; see United States v. Stehl,

665 F.2d 58, 59-60 (4th Cir. 1981) (holding that Federal Rule of

2

Appeal: 14-4856

Doc: 25

Criminal

Filed: 08/05/2015

Procedure

11

“has

Pg: 3 of 3

no

application

to

[supervised

release] revocation proceedings”).
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the
totality
admission

of
to

voluntary.
otherwise

the
the

The
—

circumstances

by

revocation

court,

indicates
violations

therefore,

failing

to

did

not

explicitly

that
was
err

Gutierrez’s
knowing
—

inquire

plainly
into

and
or
the

voluntariness of the admission.
We therefore affirm the judgment.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3