United States v. Woodard, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7134

Woodard pleaded guilty in 1999 to three counts of bank robbery and one count of use of a firearm during a crime of violence, receiving concurrent bank robbery terms and a consecutive firearm term; he violated supervised release and failed to appear at a final revocation hearing, leading to a warrant and later a two-year revocation sentence.
A 2009 revocation hearing found violations of two supervised release conditions; a final revocation hearing was scheduled for October 20, 2009, which Woodard did not attend, resulting in a warrant.
In May 2010, the district court revoked supervised release and imposed a two-year term.
In March 2011, the government sought contempt proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 401 and Rule 42(a) for Woodard’s failure to appear; Woodard moved to dismiss as untimely but was denied.
On May 24, 2011, Woodard pled guilty to the contempt petition; PSR calculated a 12–18 month range for contempt under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.6; the district court sentenced Woodard to 12 months consecutive to his two-year sentence, with three years of supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contempt petition was time-barred by § 3285.	Woodard (as the defendant) argued limitations barred timely filing.	Woodard waived limitations defense by unconditional guilty plea.	No; the penalty and contempt are governed by § 402, not § 3285, and waiver via guilty plea forecloses the issue on appeal.
Whether the 12-month sentence for contempt consecutive to the supervised-release sentence is lawful.	Woodard contends procedural error and inappropriate enhancement.	The district court correctly identified the underlying offense as bank robbery and acted within discretion.	The sentence fell within the Guidelines range and the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Soriano-Hernandez v. United States, 310 F.3d 1099 (8th Cir. 2002) (plea of guilty waives non-jurisdictional defenses, including limitations)
United States v. Vaughan, 13 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir. 1994) (guilty plea forecloses further challenges not raised at plea)
United States v. Smith, 500 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2007) (definition of underlying offense in § 2J1.6 not limited to supervised-release violation)
United States v. Phillips, 640 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 2011) (underlying offense may be a criminal offense; supervised release violations need not be crimes)
United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (explain sentencing deference and harm of structural error in guidelines)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; checks for procedural errors and substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (affirmative standard in supervised-release revocation context)