F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 11 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 03-8015
(D.C. No. 97-CR-60-02-D)
JANET LYNN HOSSACK, (D. Wyoming)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Defendant Janet Lynn Hossack appeals from the revocation of her
supervised release. We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Disney, 253 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir.
2001). To revoke Defendant’s supervised release, the district court had to find by
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore ordered submitted
without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The
court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an
order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R.
36.3.
a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had violated a term of that
release. See id. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of an
intentional violation. In determining whether the trial court’s decision was
sufficiently supported by the evidence, “we must view all of the evidence, both
direct and circumstantial, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in
the light most favorable to the Government,” United States v. Leach, 749 F.2d
592, 600 (10th Cir. 1984), keeping in mind that it is the exclusive function of the
trial court, as the trier of fact, to appraise the credibility of witnesses, determine
the weight to be given their testimony, draw inferences from that testimony, and
reach conclusions with respect to the facts, id. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Defendant pleaded guilty to drug-related charges and received a sentence of
30 months in prison followed by a four-year term of supervised release. After
violating the terms of her supervised release, Defendant was sentenced to seven
months’ imprisonment followed by two additional years of supervised release.
When police discovered an escaped prisoner, Mr. Mike Haddock, at Defendant’s
home, she was accused of violating a provision of her second supervised
release—that she “not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, . . .
[or] any person convicted of a felony unless granted permission to do so by the
-2-
probation officer.” Defendant’s supervised release was again revoked and she
was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.
At the revocation hearing, Deputy U.S. Marshal Jerry Lyon testified that
during his investigation of Mr. Haddock’s escape, he visited a residence at which
the prisoner had been staying. There, he discovered two phone voice messages:
“Mike, this is Janet. Give me a call,” and “Mike, Janet. Call me.” The Deputy
testified that he recognized the voice on the machine as that of Defendant. The
Deputy also determined that both calls came from a number registered to
Defendant’s employer. Thereafter, Mike Haddock was arrested at Defendant’s
home.
Defendant testified at the hearing. She said that someone had tried to reach
her at her father’s home. By looking at her father’s caller ID, she determined the
number that the call must have come from, called the number, and left her contact
information. She testified that Mike Haddock returned her call and asked to see
her, but she refused. That same night, while watching the evening news, she
discovered that Mike Haddock had escaped from prison. She admitted that after
having made that discovery, she made several unsuccessful attempts to get in
contact with Mr. Haddock, despite her probation officer’s warnings about
associating with felons. She testified that she wanted to contact Mr. Haddock so
that she could tell him to turn himself in. Thereafter, Mr. Haddock was
-3-
apprehended at Defendant’s home. Defendant testified that she had not invited
Mr. Haddock. Instead, her daughter claimed that she, not Defendant, had invited
Mr. Haddock into the home, apparently to wait for Defendant.
The district court concluded that Defendant had violated the terms of her
supervised release. Because her own testimony indicated that she knew that she
was not permitted to associate with felons but nevertheless attempted to contact
Mr. Haddock after hearing that he had recently escaped from prison, the district
court found it unnecessary to consider the testimony of the other witnesses.
On appeal Defendant contends that the district court’s order of revocation
is not supported by sufficient evidence because her contact with the prisoner was
inadvertent. Specifically, she claims that (1) she did not initially know that
Michael Haddock was trying to contact her, (2) when Mr. Haddock contacted her,
it was a complete surprise, and (3) although Mr. Haddock was found in her home,
she did not know he was there and had not invited him.
We agree with the district court that Defendant’s own testimony—that she
knew she was not to associate with criminals and that she nevertheless contacted
Mr. Haddock after having learned that he was an escaped prisoner—especially
when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, adequately supports a
finding by the preponderance of the evidence that Defendant willfully violated a
condition of her supervised release.
-4-
We AFFIRM the district court judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-5-