USA v. Gabriel Blair Stitt

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12173
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cr-00242-RAL-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GABRIEL BLAIR STITT,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 6, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The District Court revoked Gabriel Stitt’s supervised release on the ground
Case: 12-12173 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

that he had engaged in conduct that constituted a felony battery under Florida law,
a “Grade A” violation under the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a),
notwithstanding that the State did not charge and convict Stitt of the felony. In
determining the sentence to be imposed, the District Court calculated Stitt’s
guidelines sentence range as calling for incarceration for a term of 33 to 41
months. The statutory maximum term the court could impose was 26 months, see
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and the court sentenced Stitt to that maximum term. Stitt
now appeals the revocation of supervised release on the ground that the District
Court lacked constitutional authority to revoke his supervision because he had not
been convicted of the felony battery. Put in his words, “the Federal Government
had no power to enforce a State criminal law against [him] after the State Attorney
of Hillsborough County had determined not to prosecute [him] for felony battery.”
Appellant’s br. at 12.
Stitt’s problem is that he did not present this argument to the District Court.
Hence, we consider it under the plain error doctrine. See United States v. Nash,
438 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006). Under plain error review, we have
discretion to correct an error where it: (1) occurred, (2) was plain, (3) affects
substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276
2
Case: 12-12173 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

(11th Cir. 2007). An error is not plain when no decision from the Supreme Court
or this Court directly resolves the issue in favor of the defendant. United States v.
Humphrey, 164 F.3d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1999). That is the case here; Stitt cites no
decision holding that supervised release cannot be revoked for criminal conduct
that, in fact, occurred but did not result in a criminal conviction because it was not
charged. In short, there was no error here, much less plain error. To the extent
that Stitt argues that the District Court clearly erred in finding that he engaged in
the conduct cited in the petition to revoke supervised release, his argument is
frivolous; the evidence fully supports the court’s finding.
AFFIRMED.
3
Case: 12-12173 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --