United States v. Lorenzo Jennings
708 F. App'x 995
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lorenzo Jennings was convicted of federal drug offenses and sentenced to 360 months, later reduced; he began supervised release in Dec. 2011.
- Six months before supervised release ended, his probation officer alleged violations (battery, false imprisonment, solicitation/engaging a prostitute) and sought revocation.
- The district court designated a magistrate judge to conduct the supervised-release revocation hearing; Jennings neither consented nor objected to the designation below.
- The magistrate judge held a hearing, issued a report finding violations, and recommended revocation; Jennings objected to the report and asked for a de novo hearing on witness credibility but did not challenge the magistrate’s authority below.
- The district court reviewed the record de novo, adopted the magistrate judge’s report, and sentenced Jennings to 60 months imprisonment; Jennings appealed solely arguing the magistrate lacked authority and that § 3401(i) is unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i) requires a defendant's consent before a district court may designate a magistrate judge to conduct a supervised-release revocation hearing | Jennings: consent is required to avoid Article III and due-process problems | Government: consent not required; designation valid | Court: No controlling precedent; circuits split; because Jennings did not raise the issue below, review is plain-error and error (if any) is not plain — no reversal |
| Whether § 3401(i) is unconstitutional under Article III / due process for allowing a magistrate to make credibility findings that lead to significant imprisonment | Jennings: provision permits non-Article III judge to make determinative credibility findings violating Article III and due process | Government: no binding precedent holding § 3401(i) unconstitutional; supervised-release revocation is not a criminal prosecution requiring full Article III protections | Court: Constitutional challenge raised for first time on appeal — plain-error review applies; no binding precedent finding § 3401(i) unconstitutional, so error not plain — no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Freixas, 332 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir.) (de novo review for legal challenges to magistrate authority)
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir.) (plain-error review where objection not raised below)
- United States v. Doyle, 857 F.3d 1115 (11th Cir.) (plain-error four-part test)
- United States v. Williams, 469 F.3d 963 (11th Cir.) (error is plain only if obvious under current law)
- United States v. Ruiz-Rodriguez, 277 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.) (defendant must consent to magistrate conducting a sentencing hearing)
- United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933 (6th Cir.) (consent not required for magistrate designation under § 3401(i))
- United States v. Colacurcio, 84 F.3d 326 (9th Cir.) (consent required for magistrate designation under § 3401(i))
- United States v. Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution and carries minimal due-process protections)
- United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708 (11th Cir.) (plain-error review for constitutional challenges raised on appeal)
- United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110 (11th Cir.) (distinguishing protections owed at sentencing versus revocation)
- Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.) (dicta not binding)