USA v. Jerry Weather
Filing
OPINION filed : the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Alice M. Batchelder (authoring), Chief Circuit Judge; David W. McKeague and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judges.
Case: 10-2108
Document: 006111191589
Filed: 01/24/2012
Page: 1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0084n.06
Case No. 10-2108
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JERRY EDSON WEATHERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Jan 24, 2012
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; MCKEAGUE and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Defendant Jerry Edson Weathers appeals the
district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. Finding no abuse of discretion, we
AFFIRM the judgment.
I.
In 2002, the district court sentenced Weathers to 76 months in prison followed by three years
of supervised release for being a felon in possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
922(g) and (j). On October 19, 2009, the United States Probation Office petitioned for Weathers’s
arrest on the grounds that he was not complying with the terms of his supervised release. The
petition alleged that Weathers had assaulted a man named Jarrid Minzey on March 23, 2009.
The district court held a supervised-release-violation hearing on August 17, 2010. At the
hearing, Minzey testified that on the evening of March 22, he had been partying with Weathers and
1
Case: 10-2108
Document: 006111191589
Filed: 01/24/2012
Page: 2
No. 10-2108, United States v. Weathers
others, including Minzey’s girlfriend and her friend Heather Cook, who was Weathers’s girlfriend.
The party continued through the night, and Minzey drank excessively during that time. The next
morning, Minzey’s girlfriend accused him of having “slept with” Cook. Minzey testified that he
walked outside to “confront” Weathers. Weathers was sitting in a car, and Cook was standing
nearby. Before Minzey could say anything, Weathers jumped out of the car and hit Minzey, first
with his fist and then with a bottle. Minzey went to see a doctor and was diagnosed with a
concussion. He reported the assault to the police later that evening. Although Minzey admitted that
he had been drinking heavily during the hours leading up to the assault, and he had some difficulty
remembering the exact time that he reported the incident to the police, he testified that his alcohol
consumption had not impaired his recollection of the assault.
The government also presented testimony from Officer James Sliter, the police officer who
responded when Minzey reported the assault. Sliter testified that he met with Minzey on the evening
of March 23, and that Minzey had described the assault to Sliter and told him that Cook had
witnessed it. Sliter also testified that he observed a lump on Minzey’s head and a scrape on
Minzey’s elbow. After his meeting with Minzey, Sliter attempted to speak with Weathers and Cook
at Weathers’s home. He testified that Weathers denied knowing Minzey and initially refused to let
him speak with Cook. When Cook did join the conversation, Weathers instructed her “not to say
anything” to Sliter.
The district court determined that Minzey was a credible witness and found by a
preponderance of the evidence that Weathers had assaulted Minzey, thereby violating the conditions
2
Case: 10-2108
Document: 006111191589
Filed: 01/24/2012
Page: 3
No. 10-2108, United States v. Weathers
of his supervised release. The court sentenced Weathers to four months in prison followed by 28
months of supervised release. Weathers filed this timely appeal.
II.
We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089, 1091 (6th Cir. 2009). We review legal conclusions de novo, and
findings of fact for clear error. Id. at 1091–92. We will uphold a district court’s determination that
a witness is credible unless it is “without foundation.” United States v. Pruitt, 156 F.3d 638, 647
(6th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
United States v. Cofield, 233 F.3d 405, 406 (6th Cir. 2000). There is no dispute that Weathers’s
release included a condition that he not commit any crimes; nor is there any dispute that the alleged
assault constitutes a crime under Michigan law. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence
supports the district court’s conclusion that Weathers assaulted Minzey. Weathers claims that the
district court should not have credited Minzey’s testimony because Minzey is “a binge drinking
alcoholic who may have drank for at least twelve [] hours before the events in question and who may
have blacked out that day.” Appellant’s Br. at 6.
We find that the evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that Weathers assaulted
Minzey, and the court did not err when it determined that Minzey was a credible witness. Although
Minzey was intoxicated at the time of the assault, other evidence presented at the hearing
3
Case: 10-2108
Document: 006111191589
Filed: 01/24/2012
Page: 4
No. 10-2108, United States v. Weathers
corroborates his testimony. Several hours after the alleged assault, Officer Sliter observed a lump
on Minzey’s head and a scrape on his elbow. Further, Weathers attempted to prevent Cook from
speaking with Sliter about the assault, and told her “not to say anything”—actions from which the
district court could draw an “inculpatory inference.” Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in revoking Weathers’s supervised release.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
4
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?