FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 3, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 09-3075
v. (D.Ct. No. 2:03-CR-20185-KHV-JPO-1)
(D. Kan.)
MICHAEL HOOKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BARRETT, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The district court found Defendant-Appellant Michael Hooks violated the
conditions of his three-year term of supervised release and sentenced him to
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
twenty-four months imprisonment and another three-year term of supervised
release. Mr. Hooks appeals the revocation of his supervised release and
imposition of additional imprisonment and supervised release; however, his
attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). For the reasons set forth
hereafter, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal. Id.
I. Background
On June 14, 2004, Mr. Hooks pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute more than five grams of cocaine base within 1,000 feet of the real
property of a public elementary school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
860(a). The district court originally entered a sentence of seventy months
imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release but later, based on the
government’s Rule 35 motion, amended Mr. Hooks’s sentence to only fifty-seven
months imprisonment. On February 1, 2008, Mr. Hooks was released and began
serving his three years of supervised release. Thereafter, the United States
Probation Office for the District of Kansas alleged Mr. Hooks violated certain
conditions of his supervised release, which included his: (1) failure to refrain
from committing another federal, state, or local crime; (2) failure to participate in
an approved program for substance abuse; (3) failure to truthfully answer all
inquiries from the probation office; (4) failure to maintain employment; (5)
-2-
failure to timely notify the probation officer of his change of residence; (6)
possession, use, or distribution of controlled substances; (7) frequenting places
where controlled substances are illegally sold; and (8) associating with persons
engaged in criminal activity. Mr. Hooks conceded to violating four conditions,
including his failure to truthfully answer all inquiries from the probation office;
maintain employment; timely notify the probation officer of his change of
residence; and participate in an approved program for substance abuse.
In turn, the government presented evidence on the remaining violations,
including failing to refrain from committing another federal, state, or local crime;
possessing, using, or distributing controlled substances; frequenting places where
controlled substances are illegally sold; and associating with any persons engaged
in criminal activity. The evidence included law enforcement testimony that trash
pulls of two residences resulted in discovery of documents connecting Mr. Hooks
with those residences; multiple corners of plastic bags commonly used to package
narcotics; and marijuana in the form of stems and seeds, as confirmed through lab
analysis. A later search of one of the residences resulted in discovery of a bag
containing 7.4 grams of powder cocaine. In addition, law enforcement officers
detained Mr. Hooks, who possessed two cell phones, including one with a text
message indicating a drug sale of $40 worth of crack cocaine. In addition, a
defendant in an unrelated drug conspiracy testified he purchased drugs from Mr.
-3-
Hooks on multiple occasions after Mr. Hooks’s release from federal custody.
Based on Mr. Hooks’s concessions and the government’s evidence, the
district court found Mr. Hooks in violation of the conditions of his supervised
release. In revoking Mr. Hooks’s supervised release, the district court found Mr.
Hooks had committed an underlying crime ranking as a Grade A violation, which,
together with his criminal history category of IV, resulted in a recommended
United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”) range of thirty-
seven to forty-six months imprisonment. In proposing a twenty-four-month
sentence, the district court stated it took “into account the nonbinding Chapter 7
policy statements” and “believe[d] that the sentence would reflect the seriousness
of [Mr. Hooks’s] violations[,] especially the fact that [he] violated the law by
possessing the illegal substances and distributing them while on supervised
release.” It also noted Mr. Hooks had been “less than compliant with the other
components of supervision including working in a lawful occupation, notifying
the Probation Office about changes in [his] residence or employment, truthfully
responding to inquiries and instruction from the Probation Office, and generally
getting with the program.” Based on the conceded and other established
violations, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a
below-Guidelines-range sentence of twenty-four months imprisonment and three
years supervised release.
-4-
After Mr. Hooks filed a timely notice of appeal, his appointed counsel, who
also represented him at the revocation hearing, filed an Anders appeal brief
explaining that, after a careful examination of the record on appeal and applicable
law, the appeal contained no legally non-frivolous issues, and the district court’s
ruling on revocation of Mr. Hooks’s supervised release and modification of his
sentence was “unassailable on appeal.” See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. In support,
counsel pointed to Mr. Hooks’s admission to four of the violations and the
government’s provision of sufficient evidence to support a finding he violated the
remaining conditions. Counsel also explained that after revocation, the district
court imposed a below-Guidelines-range sentence entitled to a rebuttable
presumption of reasonableness.
Pursuant to Anders, this court gave Mr. Hooks an opportunity to respond to
his counsel’s Anders brief. See id. Mr. Hooks failed to file such a response. The
government filed a notice of its intention not to file an answer brief in this appeal.
II. Discussion
As required by Anders, we have conducted a full examination of the record
before us. See 386 U.S. at 744. In reviewing a sentence imposed after revocation
of supervised release, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Tsosie, 376 F.3d
-5-
1210, 1217-18 (10 th Cir. 2004). We will not reverse a sentence following
revocation of supervised release if the record establishes the sentence is
“reasoned and reasonable.” United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236,
1241 (10 th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3583,
“when a person violates the condition of his or her supervised release, the district
court may revoke the term of supervised release and impose prison time.” United
States v. Kelley, 359 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10 th Cir. 2004); see also 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b). In imposing a sentence following
revocation of supervised release, the district court is required to consider both the
Guidelines Chapter7 policy statements as well as factors provided in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). 1 See United States v. Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10 th Cir. 2006).
The Chapter 7 policy statements apply to violations of probation and supervised
1
The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors include:
The nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and
characteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to
afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical
care or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
pertinent guidelines; pertinent policy statements; the need to avoid
unwanted sentence disparities; and the need to provide restitution.
Cordova, 461 F.3d at 1188-89 (quoting Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d at 1242
n.3) (emphasis added).
-6-
release and include advisory guideline ranges for sentences following revocation
of supervised release. See generally U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 and §§ 7B1.3 and 7B1.4.
Under Chapter 7 of the Guidelines, revocation of supervised release is considered
appropriate for a defendant who violates the conditions of his supervision. See
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(1) and (2). We have said that in revocation proceedings,
“[t]he very language of [18 U.S.C. § 3553] instructs the sentencing court to
consider the defendant’s ‘history and characteristics.’” United States v. Hahn,
551 F.3d 977, 985 (10 th Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)), cert. denied,
129 S. Ct. 1687 (2009). However, “[t]he sentencing court ... is not required to
consider individually each factor listed in § 3553(a), nor is it required to recite
any magic words to show us that it fulfilled its responsibility to be mindful of the
factors that Congress has instructed it to consider before issuing a sentence.”
Cordova, 461 F.3d at 1189 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Instead, the
district court must “state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the
particular sentence,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), and satisfy us that it “has considered
the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
In this case, the record establishes Mr. Hooks admitted to violating at least
four of the conditions of his supervised release and the government provided
sufficient evidence to support the other alleged violations, resulting in multiple
-7-
violations. In addition, the district court provided its reasons for revoking Mr.
Hooks’s supervised release, and we are satisfied it considered the parties’
arguments, the applicable advisory Guidelines, and the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, including Mr. Hooks’s history and characteristics, when it considered his
history of non-compliance with the terms of his supervised release and the
seriousness of his violations. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude the
district court’s revocation of Mr. Hooks’s three-year term of supervised release
and imposition of a twenty-four-month term of imprisonment and another three-
year term of supervised release were both “reasoned and reasonable,” especially
in light of the fact Mr. Hooks has not offered any additional nonfrivolous reason
warranting a lower sentence.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, no meritorious appellate issue exists. Accordingly, we
GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS Mr. Hooks’s appeal.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-8-