United States v. Michael Taylor
18-7521
4th Cir.Aug 27, 2019Background
- In 2008 the district court committed Michael Anthony Taylor under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d); he was conditionally released in 2017 with supervised-release conditions.
- In 2018 the Government moved to revoke Taylor’s conditional release after a Georgia arrest for stalking and an alleged failure to report contact with law enforcement to his probation officer within 24 hours.
- At the revocation hearing the court expressly declined to find whether Taylor committed the stalking offense, and based revocation solely on Taylor’s failure to report the arrest within 24 hours.
- Taylor filed pro se motions to reconsider, arguing the single finding (failure to report) was insufficient to revoke conditional release because the court made no findings on failure to comply with treatment or on a substantial risk to others.
- The Government contended Taylor’s postjudgment admissions (failure to report and propositioning a 17-year-old) and the probation officer’s report supported revocation and that the 24-hour reporting condition was part of his treatment regimen.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court erred by revoking without finding that continued release posed a substantial risk of bodily injury or serious property damage as required by 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation may rest solely on a failure to report contact with law enforcement | Taylor: revocation on that single finding is insufficient because court made no finding that continued release posed a substantial risk or that he failed treatment | Gov’t: Taylor admitted the failure to report and other misconduct; reporting is an ancillary treatment condition and record supports revocation | Held: Reversed — district court abused discretion by not finding continued-release risk as required by § 4246(f) |
| Whether district court may rely on probation report/record without explicit findings | Taylor: court must make the required findings on record | Gov’t: court may consider the totality of the record and officer’s report even if not explicit | Held: Court must make explicit § 4246(f) findings; relying implicitly on record is insufficient |
| Standard of review for denial of reconsideration and factual findings on revocation | Taylor: (implicit) court’s denial of reconsideration should be reviewed | Gov’t: factual findings supported by record | Held: Denial of Rule 59(e) motion reviewed for abuse of discretion; § 4246(f) factual findings reviewed for clear error but must be made first |
| Whether failure to report automatically equals failure to comply with treatment regimen | Taylor: not established; court made no such finding | Gov’t: reporting condition is part of treatment regimen so failure suffices | Held: Even if failure to report is a treatment violation, the court still must find substantial risk to others under § 4246(f) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 709 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2013) (considering probation officer’s report when evaluating revocation findings)
- Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motions)
- United States v. Woods, 995 F.2d 894 (9th Cir. 1993) (clear-error review of § 4246(f) factual findings)
- United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431 (4th Cir. 1992) (similar standard in review of release revocation)