Background
Mario Jones appealed the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release. The district court found that Jones committed twelve of the eighteen violations alleged against him, including ten Grade C violations involving drug use and failure to comply with reporting requirements, as well as two Grade B violations involving a threat to a federal probation officer and failure to update his sex offender registration.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion. The court found that the record amply supported the district court’s finding that Jones committed twelve violations. Regarding the contested Grade B violation involving a threat, the court credited the testimony of a Deputy United States Marshal over Jones’s conflicting testimony, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Jones forfeited any challenge to the other Grade B violation by failing to argue it in his opening brief. The court declined to reach challenges to the contested Grade C violations, noting that any error regarding hearsay would be harmless.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that district courts have broad discretion to revoke supervised release when a defendant commits multiple violations, even when testimony is contested, provided the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government.