UNITED STATES v. HOWARD (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Tyrone Howard appeals from a June 29, 2017 judgment of the District Court revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment to be followed by twelve months’ supervised release. On appeal, Howard argues that the District Court abused its discretion when it found, on the basis of purportedly unverified and insufficient evidence, that he committed a felony controlled substance offense while on supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

* * *

“A district court may revoke a term of supervised release if it ‘finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.’ ” United States v. Glenn, 744 F.3d 845, 847 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) ). At a supervised release revocation proceeding, a district court “need not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence ․ so long as [its] findings are based on ‘verified facts’ and ‘accurate knowledge.’ ” United States v. Bari, 599 F.3d 176, 179 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) ). We review a district court’s finding of a violation of supervised release for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Spencer, 640 F.3d 513, 520 (2d Cir. 2011).

Upon review, we conclude that the District Court committed no error—much less clear error—when it found that Howard unlawfully distributed a controlled substance.

At the revocation proceeding, a probation officer testified that when Howard was arrested, law enforcement officials seized a cellular telephone (the “phone”) from him. Joint App’x at 78–79. A forensic examination of the phone confirmed that it was Howard’s: the device’s contact information matched his, and it contained “selfie” photographs of him. Id. at 85–86. The phone also contained text messages showing that its user had been distributing “dope,” “dub[s],” “dime[s],” “hard,” and “food.” Id. at 102–12. Substantial excerpts from those text messages were read into evidence, id., and an investigator testified that “hard” and “food” are street names for crack cocaine and heroin, respectively, id. at 123–25. Based on this evidence and testimony, the District Court reasonably found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howard unlawfully distributed a controlled substance.

Howard correctly notes that the government did not present additional physical evidence directly linking him to the offense. Nor did the government establish a chain of custody for the phone or proffer a witness to testify about how the forensic examination was performed. But such evidence and testimony are not always necessary in a supervised release revocation proceeding, where the evidentiary constraints are “relaxed,” Bari, 599 F.3d at 179, and the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, Glenn, 744 F.3d at 847. Here, the District Court properly concluded that the government satisfied its burden even in the absence of such evidence and testimony.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Howard on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the June 29, 2017 judgment of the District Court.