United States v. Fleming

273 F. App'x 87
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 14, 2008
DocketNo. 06-4412-cr.
StatusPublished

This text of 273 F. App'x 87 (United States v. Fleming) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Fleming, 273 F. App'x 87 (2d Cir. 2008).

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Warren Fleming appeals from a judgment of the District Court, revoking Fleming’s supervised release and sentencing him to forty-eight months’ imprisonment on the ground that he violated his conditions of release by committing additional state crimes. Fleming contends that it was plain error for the [88]*88District Court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had committed these crimes because the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution require that a jury make such findings beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have previously considered and rejected Fleming’s contention. See United States v. Carlton, 442 F.3d 802, 809 (2d Cir.2006) (“Given a prior conviction and the proper imposition of conditions on the term of supervised release, when a defendant fails to abide by those conditions the government is not then put to the burden of an adversarial criminal trial. Instead, there is, as in this case, a revocation of release hearing at which, as the Supreme Court instructs, neither the right to a jury trial, nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.”); United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273, 277 (2d Cir.2005) (“[A] violation of supervised release is not a separate basis for criminal punishment that requires a jury verdict and all that entails.”).

Recognizing that these precedents remain in force within our circuit, Fleming urges us to reverse our prior holdings, but he fails to offer a persuasive reason — and we are aware of none — to do so.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Darwin McNeil Germaine Robinson
415 F.3d 273 (Second Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Rasheim Carlton
442 F.3d 802 (Second Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 F. App'x 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fleming-ca2-2008.