Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Goodwin

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

August 8, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
FORREST T. GOODWIN, JR., Defendant, Appellant.

         APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge

          Jeffrey W. Langholtz, by appointment of the court, on brief for appellant.

          Renée M. Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, and Richard W. Murphy, Acting United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

          Before Torruella, Lynch, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

          LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

         After his conviction in 2012 for acting as an accessory after the fact to an armed credit union robbery, Forrest Goodwin was sentenced to forty-two months' imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release subject to standard and special conditions. During the period of supervised release, Goodwin repeatedly violated release conditions pertaining to substance abuse. In 2016, he was arrested, and the U.S. Probation Office filed a petition for revocation of his supervised release. At the revocation hearing, the district court sentenced Goodwin to ten months' imprisonment, to be followed by two years of supervised release subject to the same previously imposed conditions. On appeal from the revocation sentence, Goodwin challenges the term and the substance-abuse-related conditions of his supervised release sentence. We affirm.

         I.

         In June 2012, Goodwin was found guilty of acting as an accessory after the fact to an armed credit union robbery. There was trial evidence that Goodwin used the robbery proceeds to purchase drugs. Goodwin's presentence investigation report ("PSR") for the robbery offense disclosed a history of substance abuse and drug-related prior convictions. Adopting the PSR's guidelines sentencing range of thirty-seven to forty-six months, the district court sentenced Goodwin to forty-two months' imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervision. Among other conditions for release, the court mandated that Goodwin not use or possess any controlled substance, alcohol, or other intoxicant; that he participate in a substance-abuse treatment program; and that he report to his probation officer for testing.

         Goodwin was released from prison in December 2014, but arrested again in May 2016 following his repeated violations of supervised-release conditions. The Revocation Report carefully described the many instances of Goodwin's continued drug use, failure to report for testing, and refusal to submit to further testing. The report also noted that Goodwin made statements to his probation officer denying that he had a drug-addiction problem. At the revocation hearing, Goodwin admitted to all of these violations. Goodwin's counsel explained, there is "no question that [Goodwin] is addicted to opiate drugs"; "[i]f given [a] second chance, [Goodwin] understands that he now needs to work with, and not against, his probation officer"; "[Goodwin] is in agreement with the 24-month term of supervised release" and "understands that basically he needs to do all of his supervised release over again"; and "really what [Goodwin] has is a drug problem and he's trying to address it."

         The district court remembered Goodwin's case "extremely well, " having presided over Goodwin's trial and sentencing hearing in 2012. In revoking Goodwin's original supervised release, the court imposed a ten-month prison term, to be followed by two years of supervised release subject to the same set of previously imposed conditions. The court also imposed a ninety-day period of community confinement as a new special condition of release. The court described post-revocation supervised release as a final "opportunity for change" -- Goodwin's last chance to "cooperate with counseling and treatment" and "conquer [his] drug problem."

         Goodwin now challenges this new term of supervision and the substance-abuse-related requirements. Goodwin argues that the district court committed plain error because (1) supervised release will likely fail, given Goodwin's ongoing struggles with substance abuse; and, in any event, (2) the release conditions are not sufficiently related to Goodwin's original robbery offense.

         The government disputes that Goodwin's sentence was in error, but also argues as a threshold matter that Goodwin waived his challenges when his counsel stated at the revocation hearing that Goodwin "agree[d] with the 24-month term of supervised release." Goodwin maintains that he forfeited, but did not waive, his objections.

         II.

         We ordinarily review a district court's revocation sentence, including any conditions of supervised release, for abuse of discretion. United States v.Marino, 833 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2016). If the defendant forfeited his claims, we review only for plain error. United States v.York, 357 F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 2004). If the defendant instead affirmatively assented to parts of his sentence, any objections thereto are waived and cannot be resurrected on appeal. United States v.Rodriguez, 311 F.3d 435, 437 (1st Cir. 2002). Goodwin has conceded forfeiture but he contests the government's assertion of waiver. We need not address ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.