United States v. Glenn, 744 F.3d 845

Glenn, released from federal prison in November 2010, was arrested in New Haven within four months on Connecticut drug-related charges.
He pled guilty under Alford to two counts of possession of narcotics with intent to sell, receiving state prison time of two-and-a-half years.
Shortly after, Glenn was federally charged with violating supervised release conditions.
The district court identified alleged violations of three conditions: not committing another offense, refraining from controlled substances outside physician prescriptions, and not frequenting places where controlled substances are sold or used.
At a revocation hearing, Glenn argued Alford pleas insufficient to prove a supervised-release violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
The district court relied on Glenn’s Alford pleas to find a violation and imposed 36 months’ imprisonment (15 months concurrent with the state sentence).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alford pleas can prove a supervised-release violation by a preponderance of the evidence	Glenn asserts Alford pleas do not establish violation.	Glenn contends Alford pleas show no more than evidentiary strength, not guilt.	No abuse; Alford pleas may support violation finding.
Standard of review for revocation of supervised release	Spencer standard applied for abuse of discretion on factual findings.	Reasoning consistent with statutory standard for preponderance.	Reviewed for abuse of discretion; preponderance standard governs.
Whether federal law permits reliance on state-plea outcomes to prove a policy violation	Sufficiency of state conviction evidence may be considered under federal law.	State plea procedures, notably Alford, can justify a violation finding.	Ct looks to state procedure for practical effect; Alford plea valid as evidence.

United States v. Spencer, 640 F.3d 513 (2d Cir.2011) (abuse-of-discretion and standard for revocation findings)
United States v. Thomas, 239 F.3d 163 (2d Cir.2001) (clear-error review of facts in revocation)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (Supreme Court 1990) (abuse of discretion includes misapplication of law)
United States v. Carlton, 442 F.3d 802 (2d Cir.2006) (preponderance standard applicable to revocation decisions)
United States v. Poellnitz, 372 F.3d 562 (3d Cir.2004) (federal sufficiency when state procedure yields practical effect)
United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (consideration of state plea semantics for federal analysis)
State v. Faraday, 842 A.2d 589 (Conn. 2004) (Alford plea as acknowledgment of strong state evidence)
State v. Daniels, 726 A.2d 520 (Conn. 1999) (Alford plea indicates strength of evidence against defendant)