USA v. Derek Hallom
OPINION filed : The district court judgment is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Eugene E. Siler , Jr., Circuit Judge; R. Guy Cole , Jr., Authoring, Circuit Judge and Jeffrey S. Sutton, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a1193n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Nov 19, 2012
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: SILER, COLE and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
COLE, Circuit Judge. Derek Hallom appeals the supervised release term imposed as a
result of his supervised release violations, arguing that it is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. We AFFIRM the district court.
On December 16, 2009, Derek Hallom pled guilty to one count of false declarations before
a grand jury or court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Hallom’s offense was punishable by up to
five years imprisonment and up to three years of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) (up
to five years imprisonment for false declaration); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4) (felony with five year
maximum sentence falls into Class D category); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2) (up to three years supervised
release for a Class D felony). He was sentenced to 101 days time served and four years of supervised
United States v. Hallom
release. The terms of the supervised release required Hallom, among other things, to “not leave the
[Western District of Tennessee] without the permission of the court or probation officer.”
Hallom’s period of supervised release began on March 16, 2010 and was to end on March
15, 2014. On October 15, 2011, a California law enforcement officer informed Hallom’s probation
officer that Hallom had been living in the San Diego area for several months. On November 10,
2011, the Government filed a Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision,
alleging six supervised release violations by Hallom, including a violation for leaving the district
without permission. Hallom pled guilty to all six violations at his Supervised Release Violation
Hearing (or “revocation hearing”), on April 10, 2012.
The guidelines range for Hallom’s supervised release violations was eight to fourteen
months, and the maximum period of imprisonment available was twenty-four months, with up to
thirty-six months supervised release. The court sentenced Hallom, within the guidelines, to twelve
months imprisonment and twenty-four months supervised release.
In determining Hallom’s sentence, the court considered several factors, only one of which
Hallom challenges on appeal: the expiration date of Hallom’s prior supervised release term. At
Hallom’s revocation hearing, the district court reasoned that he had “about two years more of
supervision to go [until the expiration date of his original sentence],” and that a twenty-four month
period of supervised release was necessary to ensure that he would not “cut” his “time” by violating
the original supervised release. Hallom argues on appeal that the district court’s reliance on this
factor was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the original period of
United States v. Hallom
supervised release was erroneously and illegally set above the permitted statutory maximum of
thirty-six months. He requests remand and resentencing.
Hallom may not attack his original sentence via a challenge to his current sentence. See
United States v. Lewis, 498 F.3d 393, 395 (6th Cir. 2007), rehearing en banc denied, Dec. 21, 2007,
cert. denied, 555 U.S. 813 (2008) (“[A]n appellant may not ‘attempt to invalidate his original
conviction at a supervised release revocation hearing.’”) (quoting United States v. Meacham, 65 F.
App’x 529, 533 (6th Cir. 2003)) (citing United States v. Flanory, 45 F. App’x 456, 459 (6th Cir.
Hallom’s prior four-year supervised release term was unquestionably both procedurally and
substantively unreasonable, but that is not the issue before us. It is clear that Hallom, who was
represented during his sentencing for the original “false declarations” offense, did not challenge his
original sentence by objecting at the time, on direct appeal, or on collateral appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. See Lewis, 498 F.3d at 395 (describing § 2255 as “[t]he proper vehicle for such a
Several circuits, in addition to this one, have held that § 2255 is the exclusive remedy for
individuals seeking to collaterally challenge the validity of a sentence. See United States v. Almand,
992 F.2d 316, 317 (11th Cir. 1993); Atehortua v. Kindt, 951 F.2d 126, 129 (7th Cir. 1991); United
States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827,
828 (5th Cir. 1975) (“[T]he underlying validity of a conviction cannot be asserted as a defense in a
United States v. Hallom
probation revocation proceeding, . . . the conviction's validity may be collaterally attacked only in
a separate proceeding under [§] 2255, and the . . . district court has jurisdiction to consider a petition
for revocation of probation as if the underlying conviction were unquestioned, until such time as the
conviction has been judicially set aside.”).
The district court did not act unreasonably by treating Hallom’s prior sentence as valid at the
time of his Supervised Release Violation Hearing, and Hallom cannot challenge the validity of that
sentence in this appeal.
For this reason, we AFFIRM.
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?