632 F. App'x 602
11th Cir.2016Background
- Michael Telemaque was originally sentenced in 1977 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base; his sentence included 60 months supervised release.
- In 2013 Telemaque was convicted in the Western District of Louisiana on four counts of failing to depart the U.S. as required by a removal order (8 U.S.C. §1253(a)(1)(B)) and received 57 months custody plus 36 months supervised release.
- In April 2014, Telemaque’s federal probation officer petitioned the sentencing court to revoke the earlier supervised release based on the 2013 convictions.
- After a revocation hearing the district court found Telemaque violated his supervised release and sentenced him to 27 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 57‑month Louisiana term.
- Telemaque appealed, arguing (1) the Louisiana convictions were not dispositive and the court could not rely solely on them to revoke supervised release, and (2) he had a good‑faith belief he was not required to obtain removal documents, so he did not willfully violate the release conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior convictions can serve as proof of supervised‑release violation | Telemaque: Court must look beyond the mere convictions; convictions not dispositive | Gov: Convictions are probative evidence that federal law was violated and support revocation | Court: Convictions are probative and supported revocation (no error) |
| Whether Telemaque’s claimed good‑faith belief precludes finding a violation | Telemaque: Good‑faith belief he need not obtain removal documents negates violation | Gov: Rebuttal not persuasive; conviction itself shows law violated | Court: Rejected good‑faith defense; findings not clearly erroneous; revocation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110 (11th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for supervised‑release revocation)
- United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316 (11th Cir. 1993) (appellate review of factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357 (11th Cir.) (conviction evidence is probative of supervised‑release violations)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (limitations on collateral attacks to prior convictions in sentencing contexts)
- Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 371 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 2004) (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in immigration removal proceedings)
- United States v. Gresham, 325 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (plain‑error review when arguments raised first on appeal)