United States v. Patlan

• Decision Date: 12 April 2022
• Docket Number: 21-1500
• Citation: 31 F.4th 552
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo PATLAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

31 F.4th 552

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Guillermo PATLAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-1500

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued December 3, 2021

Decided April 12, 2022

Jeffrey Kienstra, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Peoria, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rosana E. Brown, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Springfield, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Rovner, Hamilton, and Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judges.

Rovner, Circuit Judge.

Guillermo Patlan appeals from the sentence that the district court imposed after his second revocation of supervised release. He asserts that the court erred by failing to recognize its discretion to treat a failed drug screening as a Grade C rather than a Grade B violation. He also claims that the court erred when it imposed a term of home confinement without justifications as part of his new conditions of supervised release. We affirm.

I.

In 2012, Guillermo Patlan pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced him to ninety-five months' imprisonment, to be followed by a four-year term of supervised release. After a retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines, the district court reduced his term of imprisonment to seventy-nine months. Patlan completed that term of imprisonment and began his first period of supervised release in April 2017. Because of positive drug tests and other violations, in January 2019, the court modified the terms of his release to include six months of home confinement. In June of that year, Patlan's probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release, alleging that Patlan had failed to participate in substance abuse treatment and had possessed controlled substances on five occasions, as evidenced by positive drug tests. Patlan admitted the violations and the district court revoked his supervision and sentenced him to a term of eighteen months' imprisonment. The court also imposed a three-year term of supervised release with conditions that included six months of home confinement.

Patlan completed the prison term and began his second period of supervised release in September 2020. Although he initially complied with the conditions imposed, in December 2020, he tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. The following month, he committed domestic battery, a charge for which he pled guilty in state court. His probation officer filed a petition to revoke supervision, alleging that he twice violated the condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime. In particular, the petition alleged two new crimes: first, Patlan "possessed and used amphetamine and methamphetamine" as evidenced by a positive drug test. Second, he committed domestic battery, a misdemeanor under Illinois law, when he attacked his girlfriend.¹

Prior to the revocation hearing, the Probation Office filed a "Violation Memorandum" with the district court, detailing the history of Patlan's supervision as well as the alleged violations underlying the petition to revoke. R. 36. The Memorandum asserted that Patlan possessed and used amphetamine and methamphetamine as evidenced by a positive drug test, and that he had committed the offense of domestic battery when he battered his girlfriend. According to the Probation Office, the drug possession was classified as a Grade B violation of the terms of supervised release. In combination with Patlan's Criminal History Category V, the Probation Office calculated the guidelines range as eighteen to twenty-four months of imprisonment, and noted that the guidelines recommended imposing the unserved portion of home confinement, in this case sixty-one days, as an additional term of imprisonment. The Violation Memorandum also included proposed conditions for supervised release, together with justifications for each condition.

The district court circulated its own tentative Conditions of Supervised Release along with justifications for those conditions so that the parties would have an opportunity to review them before the revocation hearing. R. 39. The court noted that, prior to sentencing, Patlan would have an opportunity to read the conditions and justifications, discuss them with his attorney, and object. The court directed Patlan to initial each of the conditions to confirm that he had read them, to sign the last page to affirm that he had reviewed the conditions and justifications, and to indicate whether he waived oral reading of the conditions at the hearing. The court noted that, with one exception, the conditions tracked those proposed by the Probation Office in its Violation Memorandum, and included two additional discretionary conditions that did not appear in that Memorandum. Those two conditions provided that Patlan would serve six months of home confinement at the start of his release from custody, and that he would comply with conditions of home confinement and monitoring during that term, leaving home only for a medical emergency, drug treatment, or with the advance permission of the Probation Office. The court did not include any justifications specifically addressing those last two discretionary conditions.

In its Commentary on Sentencing Factors, the government urged the court to impose a twenty-four month term of imprisonment plus the sixty-one days to account for the unserved period of home confinement. R. 38. In Patlan's Sentencing Commentary, he objected "to the application of the Grade B guideline range for policy reasons[.]" R. 40, at 1. He proposed that the court treat the drug charge as a Grade C violation and impose a below-guidelines sentence of thirteen months. He contended that treating a positive drug screening as possession of a controlled substance overstates the seriousness of the violation conduct and leads to sentencing disparities, contradicts the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3583, and is at odds with the Sentencing Commission's policy statements and intent. Citing United States v. Trotter , 270 F.3d 1150 (7th Cir. 2001), Patlan acknowledged that failed drug screens may support an inference of possession but that courts were not required to draw the inference. Instead, courts possess the discretion to conclude that a positive drug test is insufficient to establish possession. Alternatively, he continued, the court retained discretion to vary from the Grade B guideline range and impose a sentence within the Grade C range of seven to thirteen months. He contended that the government's proposed sentence was far greater than was necessary and suggested that thirteen months was sufficient.

Importantly, Patlan also "stipulate[d] to the violation conduct alleged in Violation Numbers 1 and 2, as listed in the Petitions [sic] for Warrant or Summons for Offender under Supervision." R. 40, at 4. Violation Number 1 in that Petition described the drug offense:

1. LAW VIOLATION: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ... On or about December 28, 2020, Mr. Patlan possessed and used amphetamine and methamphetamine as determined by Alere Toxicology Services, after a urine specimen provided by the offender tested positive for amphetamine

and methamphetamine. Mr. Patlan denied using amphetamine and methamphetamine.

R. 25, at 2. In addition to the stipulation, Patlan waived his right to a revocation hearing, and "plead[ed] guilty to those violations as alleged[.]" R. 40, at 3–4.

At the revocation hearing, the court listed the two charged violations, describing the first as "possessing and using amphetamine and methamphetamine," and the second as "[c]ommitting the offense of domestic battery." R. 45, at 5. Counsel for Patlan indicated that he was "willing to accept guilt" for both charged violations. Id. The court explained to Patlan directly that his "alleged violations involving the possession of amphetamine and methamphetamine [are] all within the scope of 18 United States Code Section 3583(g)(1) which mandates revocation." R. 45, at 8. Patlan indicated that he understood and that he wished to waive his right to a hearing. R. 45, at 8–9. Based on Patlan's concession that he was guilty of the charged violations, the court then found by a preponderance of the evidence that Patlan violated the terms of his supervised release by possessing and using amphetamine and methamphetamine, and by committing domestic battery. R. 45, at 9–10. In response to the court's questions, Patlan also confirmed that he had read the violation memorandum and reviewed it with his lawyer. R. 45, at 10.

The court then entertained Patlan's "policy objection" to the violation memorandum.

Counsel argued that although Trotter allows courts to infer that a failed drug screen is a Grade B "possession" violation, the court is not required to so infer, and may instead treat a failed drug screen as a Grade C violation, which would result in a lower sentencing range. The government disagreed and contended that Trotter was binding and required the court to treat the failed drug screen as a Grade B violation "because the defendant possessed amphetamine and methamphetamine." R. 45, at 11–12. The government explained that the court possessed the discretion to sentence Patlan as if the violation were Grade C rather than Grade B, but discouraged the court from doing so for a variety of reasons. The district judge noted that she had read Trotter again and concluded that government counsel was "correct in all of his points." R. 45, at 13. The court then found that the most serious offense was a Grade B violation.

Patlan's counsel then affirmed that she reviewed the court's conditions of supervision with her client and had no objections. R. 45, at 14. Patlan personally indicated that he had adequate time to review the conditions with his lawyer, and affirmed that he had initialed each condition and signed the last page. R. 45, at 14. The court then warned Patlan and his lawyer that ...