Case: 13-11083 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11083
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:06-cr-00027-MP-GRJ-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DOMANEK ALLEN WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(November 5, 2013)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11083 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Domanek Williams appeals the district court’s modification of his
supervised release terms and conditions. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the district
court did not say why it made the modification, which it was required to do; (2) the
district court is only permitted to make such a modification upon a finding of a
violation; (3) supervised release is intended to be rehabilitative, and this
modification is punitive because it prevents Williams from having contact with his
intimate partner; and (4) the district court did not allow him an opportunity to
address the new supervised release condition. After careful review, we affirm.
We review a district court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The district court is permitted, after considering the § 3553(a) factors, to
“modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised release . . . pursuant to the
provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification
of probation and the provisions applicable to the initial setting of the terms and
conditions of post-release supervision.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). Under the Rules,
the district court must hold a hearing before modifying the conditions of
supervised release. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(c)(1). At the hearing, the defendant must
have “the right to counsel and an opportunity to make a statement and present any
information in mitigation.” Id. The Rules of Criminal Procedure provide a list of
circumstances in which this hearing is not required. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(c)(2).
2
Case: 13-11083 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 Page: 3 of 4
There is no requirement that the district court make findings of fact to support its
modification. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has explained that
“[t]here is no clause in subsection (e)(2) which requires the district court to make
additional findings before it can modify conditions of supervised release.” United
States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168, 1171-72 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct.
3010 (2011).
As an initial matter, we find no merit to Williams’s claim that the district
court did not provide him with an opportunity to address the new supervised
release condition. As the record shows, after the district court relayed the
modification and asked Williams whether he understood it, it specifically asked
Williams if he wanted to say anything else. Williams responded, “No sir.” Thus,
the district court provided him with an opportunity to raise an argument, and he
failed to do so.
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified
Williams’s supervised release -- by imposing the condition that Williams have no
contact with a friend, Emily Smith -- without articulating its reasons. For starters,
the record supports the district court’s new condition. When the probation officer
alleged that Williams violated his supervised release, the district court held a
hearing, and Williams presented evidence and was represented by counsel. At the
hearing, evidence was submitted concerning the explosive relationship between
3
Case: 13-11083 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 Page: 4 of 4
Williams and Smith -- evidence that supports the conclusion that the district
court’s no-contact condition would protect Williams against future violent
encounters with Smith that could lead to violations of other terms of supervised
release. What’s more, in modifying Williams’s supervised release, there were no
statutory or rule-based requirements that the district court had to follow except to
consider the § 3553(a) factors, and there were no statutes or case law that required
the district court to make specific findings before modifying the supervised release.
As a result, we cannot find any abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
4