United States v. Whitlock
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8662
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Whitlock pleaded guilty in 2003 to possession of a controlled substance, unlawful firearm possession, and unlawful firearm acquisition; he was sentenced to 60 months and three years supervised release.
- Whitlock began supervised release in 2007, but was arrested on several Idaho state offenses; multiple state convictions occurred while under federal supervision.
- The government petitioned to revoke supervised release; the probation office prepared a SRR for the revocation with a six- to twelve-month guideline range.
- The SRR did not include the probation officer's separate sentencing recommendation, which was submitted privately to the district court.
- Whitlock sought disclosure of the confidential sentencing recommendation; the district court refused, stating it did not require disclosure and noting discretion over recommendations.
- The district court ultimately revoked the supervised release and sentenced Whitlock to six months, with some concurrency and some consecutivity with a state sentence, followed by 30 months of supervised release.
- Whitlock appealed the district court’s denial of access to the recommendation, arguing Rule 32(e)(3) and Local Rule 32.1 violate equal protection; the Ninth Circuit affirmed § held that Rule 32(e)(3) applies and is constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 32(e)(3) and Local Rule 32.1 govern disclosure in a revocation sentencing | Whitlock argues disclosure violates equal protection | Rule 32.1 governs revocation and disclosure not required | Rule 32(e)(3) applies; disclosure required unless court orders otherwise |
| Whether the equal protection challenge to Rule 32(e)(3) and Local Rule 32.1 fails | Equal protection violation | Rational basis review applies; no violation | Rule 32(e)(3) and Local Rule 32.1 constitutional under rational basis |
| Whether the district court complied with Rule 32 disclosure requirements | District court failed to disclose confidential recommendation | Court relied on hearing and SRR; no disclosure needed | No due process violation; substantial compliance; reliance on disclosed information |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baldrich, 471 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2006) (upheld constitutionality of Rule 32(e)(3) in due process context; disclosure of relied facts required)
- United States v. Carper, 24 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1994) (allocution rights extend to revocation sentencing via Rule 32.1 interpretation)
- United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 2007) (sentencing procedures for probation/supervised release violations governed primarily by Rule 32.1)
- United States v. Gonzales, 765 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (sufficient disclosure when the court discloses relied-upon facts)
- United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2006) (equal protection/due process considerations in sentencing regimes)
- Nurreh v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (rational basis review applicable where no fundamental right or suspect class)