USA v. Jimmie Lee Taite

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12285
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMIE LEE TAITE,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00102-JB-B-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 1 of 10

-- 1 of 10 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12285
Before N EWSOM , BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmie Taite appeals his sentence of 24 months’
imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release
term. He argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that
he committed false imprisonment, which is a “Grade ‘A’” violation,
and that he is due to be resentenced based solely on the “Grade C”
violations.1 After review, we affirm.
I. Background
In 2017, in the Southern District of Alabama, Taite pleaded
guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to 33
months’ imprisonment to be followed by 3 years’ supervised
release. The terms of his supervised release included that (1) he
“not commit another federal, state, or local crime”; (2) he “not
1 There are three grades of supervised release violations. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a).
Grade A violations include conduct constituting a federal, state, or local
offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year that is a
crime of violence.
Id. § 7B1.1(a)(1). Grade B violations include conduct
constituting any other federal, state, or local offense punishable by more than
one year of imprisonment.
Id. § 7B1.1(a)(2). Grade C violations constitute
federal, state, or local offenses punishable by less than one year or violations
of any condition of supervision.
Id. § 7B1.1(a)(3). When a defendant has
violated more than one of the conditions of his supervised release, “the grade
of the violation is determined by the violation having the most serious grade.”
Id. § 7B1.1(b).
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 2 of 10

-- 2 of 10 --

22-12285 Opinion of the Court 3
leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or
probation officer”; (3) he “answer truthfully all inquiries by the
probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation
officer”; and (4) he notify the probation officer within a certain
number of days “prior to any change in residence or employment.”
Taite began serving the supervised release term in May 2020. In
December 2020, the district court revoked his supervised release
after he pleaded guilty to several violations, including committing
the offenses of third-degree domestic violence and simple battery-
family violence. The district court sentenced him to 12 months’
imprisonment followed by an additional term of 24 months’
supervised release.2
Taite’s new term of supervised release commenced in
October 2021. In December 2021, his probation officer petitioned
the court for revocation of Taite’s supervised release, asserting that
Taite violated the conditions of his supervised release, which
required him to be truthful with the probation officer, to follow the
officer’s instructions, and to notify the officer of any change in
residence or employment. Later, in May 2022, the probation
officer amended the revocation petition to include additional
violations—(1) that Taite had committed additional offenses,
including false imprisonment, and (2) that he left the Southern
2 As relevant to this appeal, the district court reimposed all of the supervised
release conditions it initially imposed in 2017.
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 3 of 10

-- 3 of 10 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12285
District of Alabama and traveled to Georgia without the
permission of his probation officer.
In August 2022, the district court held a revocation hearing
at which Taite denied the false imprisonment allegation but
admitted to the other violations. In support of the false
imprisonment violation, the government called an officer with the
Griffin, Georgia Police Department. He testified that, in January
2022, he responded to a 911 call made by a child who reported a
domestic situation. The government played the body cam footage
from the incident for the court. The footage showed that, when
officers arrived, they encountered an adult female, S.J., and two
children. S.J. reported that Taite lived with her and was the father
of one of her children. S.J. said that she and Taite had been fighting.
S.J. told the officers that, during the fight, Taite had cut her hair,
struck her in the face, choked her, and “barricaded” her in a room.
As a result, officers obtained a warrant for battery-family violence,
cruelty to children, and false imprisonment under Georgia law.3 In
addition to S.J.’s report on scene that she had been barricaded in
the room, the officer testified that 911 dispatch had “advised [that]
there was a female trying to get out of the a [sic] room, being held
against her will.”
Next, the government called S.J. as a witness. She stated that
she was there pursuant to a subpoena and did not want to testify.
3 Taite left the scene before officers arrived and was apprehended a month
later.
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 4 of 10

-- 4 of 10 --

22-12285 Opinion of the Court 5
With regard to the events in question, she admitted that she and
Taite had “a physical altercation,” but she denied that Taite choked
her, struck her, or that he barricaded her in a room. Instead, she
stated that they were arguing and “tussling,” that Taite “mushed”
her in the face (but did not strike her), and that Taite was “[j]ust
standing in front of” the doorway to the bedroom. She
acknowledged that she told officers that Taite had barricaded her
in the bedroom, but she clarified that “[m]aybe [she] didn’t use the
right terminology.” She maintained that she “could have gotten
out” of the bedroom at any time, but that she “would have rather
. . . just have avoided all of that.” On cross-examination, she
admitted that she and Taite argue “from time to time” and that
they sometimes physically push each other during these
arguments. She confirmed that she did not call the police (her child
did) and that she could have freely walked out of the bedroom at
any time.
Finally, the government called Taite’s probation officer as a
witness. He testified that S.J. contacted him approximately a
month after the January incident and stated that, since the incident,
Taite had been living with her, “repeatedly physically abusing
her[,] and [that] she was in fear for her safety.” She told the
probation officer that “she was afraid to call the police . . . because
she was worried [Taite] would learn that she was the one that
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 5 of 10

-- 5 of 10 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-12285
called the police.”4 After their conversation, the probation officer
informed the United States Marshals of Taite’s location and he was
arrested. The probation officer confirmed that some of the
offenses that formed the basis of Taite’s prior revocation in 2020
involved domestic violence with S.J. On cross-examination, the
probation officer admitted that he had no way of knowing whether
it was S.J. or someone else who called him and that the caller was
not under oath during the conversation. However, he believed she
was reliable and telling the truth.
Taite did not present any evidence in rebuttal. The district
court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Taite
committed false imprisonment and that he violated the condition
of his probation that prohibited him from committing any new
offenses.
Based on the district court’s findings, Taite faced a statutory
maximum of 24 months’ imprisonment5 and 24 months’
4 Initially, S.J. was reluctant to give her identity to the probation officer and
wanted to remain anonymous, but she eventually revealed her identity.
5 Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Taite’s original offense) is a
Class C felony. Section 3583(e)(1) provides that, if the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of
supervised release, the court may revoke supervised release and “require the
defendant to serve all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by
statute for the offense that resulted in such term of supervised release[.]” 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). However, “a defendant whose term is revoked under this
paragraph may not be required to serve on any such revocation . . . more than
2 years in prison if such offense is a class C or D felony . . . .”
Id. Therefore,
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 6 of 10

-- 6 of 10 --

22-12285 Opinion of the Court 7
supervised release. The government recommended a sentence of
24 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.
Taite’s counsel argued that the state charges against Taite were still
pending and that he would be punished for the new offenses
separately. He also argued that all of the testimony presented did
not show “any considerable violence of any kind.” Therefore,
counsel requested that the district court exercise its discretion and
sentence Taite to 12 months’ imprisonment.
Taite then made a statement to the court. He admitted that
he was not supposed to be in Georgia because of his probation. He
further admitted that he and S.J. get into arguments because he
cheats but that the arguments were not physical. He asserted that
prison was not helping him and made his anger issues worse
because he had to adopt a violent mindset to survive in prison. He
asked the court for leniency and emphasized that he and S.J. just
“got in a little argument,” noting that S.J. testified that he had not
hurt her and had not “detain[ed] her in the room or none of that.”
The district court noted that, although it heard S.J.’s
testimony in court, it also saw her on the bodycam footage
speaking to officers right after the incident, and the fact that a child
made the 911 call undermined the contention that it was just a
minor argument. The court further emphasized that the grounds
for the present revocation were very similar to those for Taite’s
Taite faced a statutory maximum of two years’ imprisonment for the
revocation.
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 7 of 10

-- 7 of 10 --

8 Opinion of the Court 22-12285
prior revocation and that Taite’s continued violations of the
supervised release terms indicated to the court that Taite had “no
respect for the conditions that [were] put on [him] and that [he]
[was] just not going to comply with them.” Accordingly, the
district court reasoned that the 24-month sentence with no
supervised release was appropriate. Taite’s counsel renewed his
objection to the “[Grade] A violation.” This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
Taite argues that the district court clearly erred in finding
that he committed false imprisonment—a Grade A violation—and
that he is entitled to be resentenced under a lower guidelines range
that does not include this violation.6 He maintains that, because
S.J. testified under oath at the hearing that she was not falsely
imprisoned, the district court clearly erred in finding otherwise.
The district court may, after considering certain factors in
§ 3553(a), revoke a defendant’s supervised release if the court finds
by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a
condition of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We
review the “district’s court’s revocation of supervised release for an
6 Based on the grade of the violation and his criminal history, the applicable
guidelines range was 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).
Without the finding that Taite had committed a Grade A violation (based on
the offense of false imprisonment), Taite would have faced a guidelines range
of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment.
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 8 of 10

-- 8 of 10 --

22-12285 Opinion of the Court 9
abuse of discretion.”7
United States v. Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264,
1266 (11th Cir. 2010). The district court’s findings of fact made
during a revocation proceeding “are binding on this Court unless
clearly erroneous.”
United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318
(11th Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted). “Clear-error review is
deferential, and we will not disturb a district court’s factual findings
unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the court
made a mistake.”
United States v. Matthews, 3 F.4th 1286, 1289
(11th Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted). “Thus, we may not reverse
if the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of
the record viewed in its entirety.”
Id. (alteration adopted)
(quotation omitted).
Here, the district court’s finding by a preponderance of the
evidence that Taite committed false imprisonment was not clearly
erroneous. Although S.J. denied at the hearing that Taite
“barricaded” her in the room and maintained that she could have
left at any time, she admitted that Taite was blocking the doorway.
Importantly, her testimony conflicted with her recorded statement
to officers, and the district court was entitled to give more weight
7 The government argues that Taite failed to preserve this issue for appeal and
that our review should be for plain error only. We disagree. Taite contested
the allegation that he violated the terms of his supervised release by
committing another state offense, namely, false imprisonment. Indeed, the
false imprisonment allegation was the main focus of the revocation hearing.
Moreover, Taite reiterated his objection to the “[Grade] A violation” at the
end of the revocation hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that he preserved
the challenge to the false imprisonment finding for appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 9 of 10

-- 9 of 10 --

10 Opinion of the Court 22-12285
to the recorded statement she made to officers right after the
incident.
See United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749
(11th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “[c]redibility determinations are
typically the province of the factfinder” and “a trial judge’s . . .
choice of whom to believe is conclusive on the appellate court
unless the judge credits
exceedingly improbable testimony”
(emphasis in original) (quotation omitted)). Additionally, the
officers testified that, on the day in question, 911 dispatch had
advised officers “[that] there was a female trying to get out of the a
[sic] room, being held against her will.” Accordingly, based on the
body camera footage and the information reported to 911 dispatch
by the child who placed the call, it was not clearly erroneous for
the district court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that
Taite committed false imprisonment.
See O.C.G.A. § 16-5-41(a)–
(b) (providing that “[a] person commits the offense of false
imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another,
he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal
authority,” and the offense is punishable by one to ten years’
imprisonment);
Smith v. State, 724 S.E.2d 885, 887–88 (Ga. 2012)
(upholding a false imprisonment conviction where the victim
testified that the defendant physically blocked the doorway and
prevented her from leaving the bedroom). Consequently, we are
not “left with a definite and firm conviction that the court made a
mistake.”
Matthews, 3 F.4th at 1289. Accordingly, we affirm
Taite’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-12285 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023 Page: 10 of 10

-- 10 of 10 --