United States v. Spraglin

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________
No. 04-51331
______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LYNN LEVERT SPRAGLIN,
Defendant-Appellant,
______________________
CONSOLIDATED WITH
No. 04-51332
______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LYNN SPRAGLIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
______________________
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lynn Levert Spraglin appeals the revocation of his supervised
release in each of his underlying federal convictions. He avers
that the district court abused its discretion in revoking his

-- 1 of 3 --

1 See United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995).
2 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
3 9 F.3d 1253, 1254 (7th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
4 Id. at 1255.
5 501 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1974).
2
supervised release based on evidence of his state murder conviction
which is still pending on appeal at the time that supervision was
revoked.
We review the decision to revoke supervised release under an
abuse of discretion standard.1 In order to revoke a term of
supervised release, a court must find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his release.2
In United States v. Fleming,3 the Seventh Circuit held that a state
conviction provides adequate proof of the violation of a state law
to justify revoking supervised release. The court observed that it
would be “duplicative and wasteful” to require additional evidence
to satisfy the revocation standard when a conviction is on appeal.4
Within the analogous context of probation revocation, the
Second Circuit held in Roberson v. Connecticut5 that a probation
revocation could be properly based on proof of a non-final
conviction. The court reasoned that
[a] criminal conviction after a trial at which the
probationer was entitled to all the protections afforded
a criminal defendant including formal rules of evidence,
the right to assigned counsel if indigent, and the
requirement that the state establish guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt certainly affords a more than sufficient

-- 2 of 3 --

6 Id. at 308.
7 United States v. Garza, 484 F.2d 88, 89 (5th Cir. 1973).
3
basis for revocation of probation, even if that
conviction is still awaiting appellate review.6
Moreover, we have held that “revocation of probation does not
require proof sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. All
that is required is enough evidence, within a sound judicial
discretion, to satisfy the district judge that the conduct of the
probationer has not met the conditions of probation.”7
We conclude that Spraglin’s state murder conviction was
sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he
had violated the terms of his supervised release. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Spraglin’s
supervised release.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --