United States v. William Gutierrez , 611 F. App'x 154 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4856
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM GUTIERREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00279-CCB-1)
Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: August 5, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Julie L.B. Johnson,
Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Gutierrez appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 18 months’
imprisonment. Gutierrez contends that the district court
violated his due process rights by failing to adequately ensure
that he knowingly and voluntarily admitted to violating the
conditions of supervised release. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
Because Gutierrez did not raise any objections in the
district court to the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry
before accepting his admission to violating the conditions of
supervised release, our review is for plain error. See
Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013)
(explaining plain error review). “A defendant’s supervised
release cannot be revoked without a full hearing unless the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily admits to the allegations
against [him] and waives [his] rights under Rule 32.1 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” United States v. Farrell,
393 F.3d 498, 500 (4th Cir. 2005). A knowing and voluntary
waiver of the right to a full revocation hearing may be inferred
from the totality of the circumstances and without a formal
colloquy with the defendant. Id.; see United States v. Stehl,
665 F.2d 58, 59-60 (4th Cir. 1981) (holding that Federal Rule of
2
Criminal Procedure 11 “has no application to [supervised
release] revocation proceedings”).
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the
totality of the circumstances indicates that Gutierrez’s
admission to the revocation violations was knowing and
voluntary. The court, therefore, did not err — plainly or
otherwise — by failing to explicitly inquire into the
voluntariness of the admission.
We therefore affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3