United States of America v.  Rita Ann Farrell

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 04-4196 
RITA ANN FARRELL,
Defendant-Appellant. 
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CR-99-87)
Argued: October 29, 2004
Decided: January 5, 2005
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
Glen E. CONRAD, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Conrad wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Widener and Judge Motz joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Frances Hemsley Pratt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel
Joseph Grooms, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Pub-

-- 1 of 5 --

lic Defender, Michael S. Nachmanoff, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty,
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
OPINION
CONRAD, District Judge:
Rita Ann Farrell appeals from the district court’s revocation of her
supervised release and its imposition of a twenty-four month prison
sentence. Farrell contends that she did not knowingly and voluntarily
admit to the supervised release violations or waive her rights under
Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
I.
In 1999, Farrell pled guilty to four counts of credit card fraud in
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1644(a). Farrell was sentenced to thirty-seven
months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised
release. Farrell’s term of supervised release commenced on March 22,
2002. On January 22, 2004, Farrell’s probation officer petitioned the
court for an arrest warrant, based on the following violations of Far-
rell’s conditions of supervised release: (1) commission of another
crime in Fairfax County, Virginia;1 (2) failure to submit monthly
supervision reports for August, October, and November 2003, and
failure to report to the probation office on December 11, 2003; (3)
failure to notify her probation officer of a change in employment; (4)
failure to notify her probation officer that she was arrested for the
crime committed in Fairfax County; (5) failure to make payments
toward her restitution obligation; (6) failure to participate in mental
health counseling; (7) commission of another federal crime in the Dis-
trict of Columbia; and (8) failure to notify her probation officer of a
second change of employment. Farrell was arrested for the supervised
release violations on February 4, 2004.
1The government subsequently indicated that it would not proceed on
this alleged violation.
2 UNITED STATES v. FARRELL

-- 2 of 5 --

On February 6, 2004, Farrell appeared before a magistrate judge
for a preliminary hearing on the alleged violations. Farrell’s counsel
did not present any evidence in opposition to the probation officer’s
petition on supervised release. Therefore, the magistrate judge found
cause to require Farrell to appear before the district court for a super-
vised release revocation hearing.
The district court held a supervised release revocation hearing on
February 13, 2004. At the start of the hearing, Farrell’s counsel
addressed each of the supervised release violations cited in the proba-
tion officer’s petition. Counsel stated that Farrell admitted to each of
the "technical violations" but that she would not admit to the criminal
charges pending in the District of Columbia.2 Farrell’s counsel
acknowledged that the government was ready to proceed with a hear-
ing on those charges. However, she suggested that it was not neces-
sary given the admitted technical violations. Farrell’s counsel
explained that "all of the parties, including Ms. Farrell, are in agree-
ment that she is not a good candidate for continued supervision." Far-
rell’s counsel recommended that the court revoke Farrell’s supervised
release and impose a period of incarceration.
Although the government offered to proceed on the criminal
charges pending in the District of Columbia, the district court deter-
mined that it was not necessary. The court emphasized that it was
most concerned with Farrell’s failure to comply with the mental
health counseling requirement. The district court concluded that Far-
rell violated her conditions of supervised release. After hearing argu-
ment from counsel on the appropriate sentence, the district court
asked Farrell if she had anything to say before the court imposed a
sentence. Farrell apologized to the district court and stated that she
was physically unable to attend the required counseling sessions.
The district court ultimately imposed the maximum sentence of
twenty-four months of imprisonment. The court explained that the
maximum sentence was appropriate based on the number of technical
violations.
2Since the government indicated that it would not proceed on the crim-
inal charges pending in Fairfax County, Farrell’s counsel did not address
that violation.
3 UNITED STATES v. FARRELL

-- 3 of 5 --

II.
A defendant’s supervised release cannot be revoked without a full
hearing unless the defendant knowingly and voluntarily admits to the
allegations against her and waives her rights under Rule 32.1 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.3 See United States v. Correa-
Torres, 326 F.3d 18, 20 (1st Cir. 2003); United States v. LeBlanc, 175
F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 63,
68 n.9 (2nd Cir. 1997); United States v. Stocks, 104 F.3d 308, 312
(9th Cir. 1997). On appeal, Farrell contends that the record in this
case fails to establish a knowing and voluntary admission or waiver.
We disagree.
It is undisputed that Farrell’s probation officer provided the parties
with a copy of the petition on supervised release, which summarized
all of Farrell’s alleged violations of her supervised release conditions.
During the revocation hearing, Farrell’s counsel acknowledged that
Farrell faced a sentencing range of eight to twenty-four months. Nev-
ertheless, defense counsel explicitly stated, in Farrell’s presence, that
Farrell admitted to the alleged technical violations, and that the dis-
trict court could proceed directly to sentencing. Counsel also told the
court that all of the parties, including Farrell, agreed that Farrell was
not a good candidate for continued supervision. When given the
opportunity to address the district court directly, Farrell apologized to
the court and attempted to explain why she failed to comply with the
3The portion of Rule 32.1 pertinent to this appeal provides that unless
waived by the person, the court must hold a revocation hearing in which
the person is entitled to:
(A) written notice of the alleged violation;
(B) disclosure of the evidence against the person;
(C) an opportunity to appear, present evidence, and question
any adverse witness unless the court determines that the
interest of justice does not require the witness to appear;
and
(D) notice of the person’s right to retain counsel or to request
that counsel be appointed if the person cannot obtain coun-
sel.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2).
4 UNITED STATES v. FARRELL

-- 4 of 5 --

mental health counseling requirement. At no point during the hearing
did Farrell object to her counsel’s assertions. It is clear from the total-
ity of the circumstances presented in the record that Farrell under-
stood the allegations against her, that she knowingly and voluntarily
admitted to the alleged violations, and that she knowingly and volun-
tarily waived her right to a full revocation hearing. See United States
v. Tapia-Escalera, 356 F.3d 181, 184 (1st Cir. 2004) (finding a know-
ing and voluntary admission and waiver where defense counsel stated
in the defendant’s presence that the defendant did not contest the
alleged supervised release violations, and where the defendant did not
dispute any of defense counsel’s assertions).
III.
For the reasons set forth above, the district court’s revocation of
Farrell’s supervised release and its imposition of a twenty-four month
prison sentence are
AFFIRMED.
5 UNITED STATES v. FARRELL

-- 5 of 5 --