[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
November 28, 2005
No. 04-16353 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 00-00262-CR-J-20HTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ALLEN ARNOLD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 28, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Allen Arnold, pro se, appeals the district court’s revocation of his
supervised release. Arnold challenges his underlying conviction and sentence, and
contends that the probation officer who submitted a petition notifying the court that
he violated conditions of his supervised release engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law, that the sentencing judge erred in failing to recuse himself, and that
the district court violated the Separation of Powers doctrine by sentencing him to a
term of imprisonment based on his violation of a condition of supervised release.
We find no error. We will not consider Arnold's arguments challenging his
underlying conviction because this Court affirmed Arnold's conviction on direct
appeal, and this is not a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. We likewise do not consider
Arnold's arguments challenging his underlying sentence, because the sentence is
presumed valid and cannot be challenged in a revocation proceeding. By reporting
to the court the status of Arnold’s supervised release, the probation officer is not
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. We find no error in the procedures
utilized by the district court below and find no abuse of discretion in the revocation
of Arnold's supervised release, or in the district court judge’s refusal to recuse
himself from the sentencing proceeding, as there is no evidence of any personal
bias or prejudice by the district court judge against Arnold. Finally, the revocation
of supervised release process does not violate the Separation of Powers doctrine.
AFFIRMED.
2