United States v. Engles, 779 F.3d 1161

Engles, a registered sex offender, was on federal supervised release with a condition prohibiting commission of any federal, state, or local crime.
On Sept. 5, 2013, Engles accompanied his girlfriend to her 16-year-old daughter’s high school to update emergency contact information and spent ~10 minutes on campus.
A school employee recognized Engles as a sex offender and reported him; Oklahoma charged him under the Zone of Safety Around Schools statute for “loitering.”
A state jury convicted Engles; sentence was time served plus a $2,500 fine; his state appeal is pending.
The federal district court revoked Engles’s supervised release based on the state conviction and imposed 13 months’ imprisonment and 24 months’ supervised release.
On federal appeal Engles argued only that his conduct did not constitute loitering (i.e., a collateral attack on the state conviction).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Engles may collaterally attack the Oklahoma conviction in his federal supervised-release appeal	N/A (government relied on state conviction to revoke)	Engles contends his conduct did not constitute loitering and thus the conviction is invalid	Court held Engles cannot collaterally attack the state conviction in the supervised-release appeal; revocation affirmed
Whether district court should have reconsidered underlying facts instead of relying on the conviction	N/A	Engles suggested the factual dispute about loitering warranted review	Court explained revocation was based on a stand-alone state conviction, not the district court’s independent factual finding, so challenge must be to the conviction itself
Applicability of precedents allowing reversal where revocation rests on court’s legal/factual errors	N/A	Engles relied on cases reversing revocations where district court erred on law/facts	Court distinguished those cases (Disney, Reber) because those involved direct assessment of conduct by the revoking court, not reliance on an independent conviction
Whether a successful state appeal could permit relief from the federal revocation	N/A	Engles noted state appeal pending and argued for consideration	Court dismissed collateral attack without prejudice and stated a successful state appeal could support a future motion to vacate the revocation

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due-process principles applicable to revocation proceedings)
United States v. Reber, 876 F.2d 81 (10th Cir. 1989) (revocation review where district court’s factual/legal errors were controlling)
United States v. Disney, 253 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2001) (revocation reversed where court misinterpreted federal criminal statute at issue)
United States v. Garza, 484 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1973) (probationer may not relitigate issues determined in other forums when revocation is based on a conviction)
United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1977) (defendant may not collaterally attack the conviction that formed basis for probation revocation)