United States v. Degroate

Summary

The Second Circuit affirmed Lameik Degroate’s 18-month sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release. The court held that a supervisee has no right to present live mitigation witnesses at a revocation hearing, that the curfew condition did not unlawfully delegate judicial authority to the Probation Office, and that any improper lockdown violations did not affect the outcome. The court also rejected Degroate’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his above-guideline sentence.

Holdings

1. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(E) gives a supervisee the right to make a statement and present mitigating information, but does not give the supervisee a right to call live mitigation or character witnesses. The district court therefore did not err by denying Degroate's request to have his mother address the court.
2. The district court did not unlawfully delegate its judicial authority by requiring Degroate to comply with a curfew while allowing the Probation Office to set the curfew's commencement date and precise conditions.
3. Even assuming that the Probation Office exceeded its delegated authority by imposing a two-day lockdown, Degroate failed to show that the lockdown violations affected the outcome of the revocation hearing; therefore, the alleged error did not warrant relief under plain-error review.
4. Degroate's 18-month above-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(E) gives a supervisee a right to call mitigation or character witnesses at a supervised-release revocation hearing.
2. Whether the district court unlawfully delegated judicial authority to the Probation Office by requiring Degroate to comply with a curfew whose commencement date and conditions were to be set by the probation officer.
3. Whether any error arising from the Probation Office's alleged imposition of a two-day lockdown affected the outcome of the revocation hearing.
4. Whether Degroate's above-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court allegedly overemphasized dangerousness and failed to account for mitigating factors.

Disposition

affirmed