United States v. Hernandez

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 16, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50467
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TRINI JOHN HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-03-CR-20-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Trini John Hernandez (“Hernandez”), appeals the district
court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing
him to 11 months’ imprisonment. Hernandez contends that the
district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the
evidence obtained by police officers. A district court may
revoke a term of supervised release upon a finding, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a
condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-50467
-2-
The district court’s revocation of supervised release is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Grandlund, 71
F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995).
Hernandez has failed to demonstrate that his case is
factually distinguishable from United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d
854, 857-59 (5th Cir. 1992)(absent a showing of harassment by
police, the exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of
supervised release hearings). Hernandez’s statements, although
made without the benefit of Miranda warnings following his
arrest, were disclaimers of ownership of the “daytimer” at issue
here and not in any way inculpatory. Hernandez’s supervised
release was revoked on the basis of tangible evidence found
pursuant to the search of the vehicle, which includes the
daytimer and its contents, specifically Hernandez’s social
security card and the pawn ticket bearing his name and birthdate.
Because these items were seized incident to a lawful Fourth
Amendment search following his arrest, there is no basis for
distinguishing Montez from Hernandez’s case. Consequently, the
decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --