United States v. Luke Goodon
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2326
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Luke Goodon pled guilty in 2008 to bankruptcy fraud and structuring; sentenced to 27 months and 24 months supervised release, which began Feb 2011.
- Probation office moved to revoke supervised release based on state-law violations and release terms; a May 30, 2013 hearing revoked release and imposed 12 months imprisonment and 12 months supervised release.
- Alleged violations included two Iowa thefts, a state-fraud issue, a fictitious plates violation, scrapping metal without permission, and failure to notify probation within 3 days.
- State court actions included an Iowa theft conviction (May 2012) and a 2013 traffic citation for fictitious plates; the Iowa theft resulted in 12 days time served and restitution.
- District court relied on certified copies of state convictions and other record evidence to prove violations during the revocation hearing.
- Goodon challenged the use of certified conviction copies over live testimony and the timing/adequacy of the required notice to probation in 2013; the court upheld the revocation and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified state-conviction copies suffice for revocation proof. | Goodon argues for live testimony under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C). | Goodon contends certified copies are insufficient or unconstitutional under confrontation. | Certified copies suffice; no Sixth Amendment violation. |
| Whether failure-to-notify within 72 hours proven by four-day delay. | Government must prove the delay beyond 72 hours. | Goodon notified four days later is a violation. | District court did not clearly err; delay proven. |
| Whether the revocation sentence is substantively reasonable. | Sentence reasonable under guideline range and jurisprudence. | Court should not exceed appropriate factors. | Sentence within scope of discretion; substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2005) (confrontation concerns in revocation contexts; certification evidence admissible)
- United States v. Huusko, 275 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2001) (state-court conviction as sufficient revocation proof)
- United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541 (8th Cir. 1979) (conviction evidence supports probation revocation even if appeal pending)
- United States v. Ray, 530 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation proceedings involve limited due process; not full Sixth Amendment confrontation)
- United States v. Ingram, 594 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2010) (admission of a certified conviction at sentencing does not violate confrontation rights)
- United States v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2013) (confrontation de novo for constitutional questions; Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) abuse of discretion standard for non-confrontational issues)
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence under abuse of discretion standard)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (presumed reasonableness of within-range revocation sentence; factor weighing standard)