USA v. James Parnell Robinson

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 9, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
______________
No. 10-10052
Non-Argument Calendar
______________
D.C. Docket No. 4:07-cr-00003-CDL-GMF-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES PARNELL ROBINSON,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
_____________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia
_____________________________
(July 9, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant James Parnell Robinson appeals the district court’s order
Case: 10-10052 Date Filed: 07/09/2010 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

revoking his supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment of nine
months. On appeal, Robinson contends that the evidence at his revocation
hearing was insufficient for the district court to conclude that he voluntarily
departed the Avanti Wellness Center’s treatment program and thereby violated
the terms of his supervised release by failing to complete the program.
“Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court may, upon finding by a
preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated a condition of
supervised release, revoke the term of supervised release and impose a term of
imprisonment.” United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir.
2006). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release. United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 112 (11th Cir. 1994).
We give deference to the district court’s factual findings unless clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir. 1993).
We generally will not review the factfinder’s determination of credibility. See
United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th Cir. 1994).
The testimony of Tracy Arnold, a case manager at Avanti, establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence that Robinson failed to complete the program at
Avanti because he voluntarily left the program to seek medical treatment.
Although Robinson contends that he was “constructively discharged,” the
2
Case: 10-10052 Date Filed: 07/09/2010 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

district court found Arnold’s testimony to be credible, so its conclusion that
Robinson left on his own accord, even though he could have received the proper
medical treatment at Avanti, was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, because
Robinson failed to complete the program as required by the terms of his
supervised release, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in revoking his supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm its order.
AFFIRMED.
3
Case: 10-10052 Date Filed: 07/09/2010 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --