[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 16, 2011
No. 11-12492
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cr-00291-WS-M-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES RHOULDS POWE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 16, 2011)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Powe appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised
release, contending that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was
insufficient to sustain the court’s finding that he had violated the conditions of his
supervised release.
I.
In 2006 Powe pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was convicted and
sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. The district court also imposed a 3-year term
of supervised release, and the conditions of that supervised release prohibited Powe
from committing another federal, state, or local crime or illegally possessing a
controlled substance. Powe’s term of supervised release began on May 9, 2008, and
was scheduled to expire on May 8, 2011.
On March 23, 2011, police in Prichard, Alabama, arrested Powe for the crimes
of unlawful distribution and possession of a controlled substance. Powe’s probation
officer then filed a petition for the revocation of his supervised release. In response
the district court issued a warrant ordering Powe to appear before the court and
answer the probation officer’s allegations that he had violated the conditions of his
supervised release by (1) committing the crimes of unlawful distribution and
possession of a controlled substance and (2) illegally possessing a controlled
2
substance.
At the revocation hearing, the district court found that Powe had violated the
conditions of his supervised release. The court revoked his supervised release and
sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment. This appeal followed.
II.
The district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of that release.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court must revoke a defendant’s supervised release if
the court finds that the defendant violated the specific condition prohibiting the
illegal possession of a controlled substance. Id. § 3583(g)(1).
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s judgment revoking a
defendant’s supervised release. United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d
1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). We review for clear error the district court’s findings
of fact at a revocation hearing, United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir.
1993), and will reverse only if the record lacks substantial evidence to support those
findings. See United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007).
Substantial evidence presented at the revocation hearing supports the district
court’s finding that Powe violated the conditions of his supervised release. Jerrail
Ramsey, a police officer involved in Powe’s arrest, testified that an undercover police
3
officer, wired for audio, purchased crack cocaine from a drug dealer. As that drug
dealer approached the undercover officer’s truck, that officer described the drug
dealer as an African–American male wearing dark bluejeans, a white t-shirt, a blue
cap with a red bib, and a silver chain with a big cross. Shortly after the drug
transaction, police officers arrested Powe. Powe is an African–American male, and
he was arrested wearing dark bluejeans, a white t-shirt, a blue cap with a red bib, and
a silver chain with a big cross. Police also found crack cocaine on Powe’s person.
Later, the undercover officer identified Powe as the drug dealer from whom he had
purchased the crack cocaine. Although the undercover officer did not testify at the
revocation hearing, reliable hearsay is admissible at a revocation hearing. See United
States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 114 (11th Cir. 1994).
AFFRIMED.
4