United States v. Melton, 12–4008.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: SHEPHERD
• Citation: 738 F.3d 903
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Nathan MELTON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 12–4008.,12–4008.
• Decision Date: 26 December 2013

738 F.3d 903

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Nathan MELTON, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–4008.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 25, 2013.
Filed: Dec. 26, 2013.

[738 F.3d 904]

Raphael M. Scheetz, Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellant.

Lisa C. Williams, AUSA, Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

In 2009, Nathan Melton was convicted of bank fraud and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Melton's supervised release has been revoked three times. Melton now challenges the third revocation proceeding, arguing that the district judge should have recused from the proceeding. We hold that the district court ¹ did not commit plain error by not recusing sua sponte.²

Approximately one month after Melton was discharged into supervised-release for the third time,³ the United States Probation Office filed a notice of noncompliance, alleging that Melton had violated several conditions of his supervised release. These violations included, among others, use of controlled substances, failure to comply with residential-reentry-center rules, failure to participate in substance abuse treatment, and failure to comply with drug testing. A revocation hearing was held November 19, 2012. Shortly before the hearing, Melton submitted to a drug test, and during the hearing, the preliminary results came back positive for synthetic marijuana. Melton maintained that he had not used synthetic marijuana and requested a formal lab test. The district court continued the revocation hearing, pending the results of the formal lab test. The district court decided to hold Melton in custody until the new hearing, which was scheduled to occur three weeks later. With courtroom personnel, including the judge, still in the courtroom, the marshals attempted to take Melton into

[738 F.3d 905]

custody. Melton became violent and refused to submit to the marshals. Melton struggled and fought with the marshals, injuring one of them and causing damage to courtroom furniture.

The same judge presided over the rescheduled revocation hearing. Melton was cited for violating multiple conditions of his supervised release, including a new supervised-release violation arising from the November 19 courtroom altercation. During the hearing, Melton admitted to the supervised-release violations for which he was originally cited. With regard to the new supervised-release violation arising from the November 19 disruption, Melton conceded that if evidence was presented, the court would find a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Relying on these violations, the district court sentenced Melton to 36 months imprisonment, the maximum sentence available. The court indicated its dissatisfaction with Melton's actions at the November 19 hearing and reasoned that Melton's continued inability to adhere to the conditions of his release and his disrespect for the court justified the sentence. Though Melton knew the same judge would preside over the rescheduled revocation hearing, he did not request the judge to recuse, but, he now asks this court to hold that the judge should have recused sua sponte.

Because Melton argues the issue of recusal for the first time on appeal, “we review the lower court's inaction under the ‘plain error’ standard.” United States v. Sypolt, 346 F.3d 838, 839 (8th Cir.2003). “ ‘To obtain relief under a plain-error standard of review, the party seeking relief must show that [1] there was an error, [2] the error is clear or obvious under current law, [3] the error affected the party's substantial rights, and [4] the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” United States v. Green, 701 F.3d 541, 543 (8th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884, 887 (8th Cir.2011)). The party seeking recusal bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that the presiding judge was impartial. United States v. Martinez, 446 F.3d 878, 883 (8th Cir.2006). “We have never found that a...