green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
65.3 score
“because we hold that the chapter 7 sentencing range is not binding on district courts and that it is within their discretion to exceed this range, it follows that exceeding this range does not constitute a 'departure.”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Nicholas Martino
because we hold that the chapter 7 sentencing range is not binding on district courts and that it is within their discretion to exceed this range, it follows that exceeding this range does not constitute a 'departure.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Antonio Slaton
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
a certified copy of a conviction is proper evidence that a defendant violated a state or federal law and, thereby, violated a condition of his or her supervised release.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Stephen Thomas Warren
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
efusal to permit such collateral attack of convictions furthers the goal of finality of judgments.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Burl L. Bargeron
See United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 317 (11th Cir. 1993) (cita- tions omitted) (“A sentence is presumed valid until vacated under § 2255.”); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted) (“As to [the defendant’s] argument that the con- viction was unconstitutional, a supervised release revocation pro- ceeding is not the proper forum in which to attack the conviction giving rise to the revocation.”), modified on reh’g, 92 F.3d 1108 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. White, 416 F.3d 1313, 1316 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 23-11100 Document: 23-1 D…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terrance Wellons
USCA11 Case: 23-11376 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/28/2023 Page: 5 of 6 23-11376 Opinion of the Court 5 A district court “may revoke a defendant’s term of super- vised release and impose a prison sentence when it finds by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his or her supervised release.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Koretsky Magloire
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362 (11th Cir. 1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brandon Miquel Lewis
A district court may revoke a term of supervised release and impose a prison sentence when it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated a condition of supervised re- lease. 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Charles Baker, III
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362-63 (11th Cir. 1996). 7 USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 8 of 8 Baker’s argument regarding the procedural reasonableness of his sentence centers on the district court’s failure to reclassify his underlying conviction under the First Step Act.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Darryl Petlock
App. 33. 7 Manuel, 732 F.3d at 291 (quoting Hodges, 460 F.3d at 652 ). 8 United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases). 3 by oath or affirmation.” 9 The Fourth Amendment provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.” 10 Courts disagree about whether this requirement extends to warrants issued for violating a condition of supervised release. 11 We, however, need not decide this question, because the papers here would satisfy the oath or affirmation requirement if it did apply.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ryan Cate
CATE collaterally attacked in a supervised release revocation proceeding and may be challenged only on direct appeal or through a habeas corpus proceeding.”); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his underlying conviction was unconstitutional because “a supervised release revocation proceeding is not the proper forum in which to attack the conviction giving rise to the revocation”). 2 Pursuant to the reasoning of Simmons and Gross, the district court properly denied Cate’s motion to terminate supervised rel…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Frederick Tyrone Calhoun
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
“A certified copy of a conviction is proper evidence that a defendant . . . violated a condition of his or her supervised release.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Frederick Tyrone Calhoun
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
“A certified copy of a conviction is proper evidence that a defendant . . . violated a condition of his or her supervised release.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Aaron Lamar Hollins
A, intro, comment. 3(a); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 361 (11th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jermaine Jones
III Several of our sister courts have held that “the validity of an underlying conviction or sentence may not be collaterally attacked in a supervised release revocation proceeding and may be challenged only on direct appeal or through a habeas corpus proceeding.” United States v. Warren, 335 F.3d 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d *344 827, 828-29 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Torrez-Flores, 624 F.2d 776, 780 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir. 1987); Uni…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Telemaque
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 92 F.3d 1108 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Labenz Turner
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Subil
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Hofierka, 83 F.3d at 363 (affirming district court’s finding that defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release based on a certified copy of defendant’s judgment of conviction alone).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anthony J. Thompson
However, we have said that a supervised release revocation hearing is “not the proper forum” for a defendant “to attack the conviction giving rise to the revocation.” *778 United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Antonio Lemore Johnson
See United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir.2000); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362-63 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nashon Akkur Barnes, aka Honey Comb
See United States v. Walker, 198 F.3d 811 , 813 (11th Cir.1999) (“[A] district court may reopen and reduce a federal sentence once a federal defendant has, in state court, successfully attacked a prior state conviction, previously used in enhancing the federal sentence.”); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 364 (11th Cir.1996) (noting that, if the defendant’s state-court conviction “is reversed, he may seek appropriate modification of his supervised release revocation sentence at that time”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arthur Steven Rich
See, e.g., United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 799 (11th Cir.2006) (“We have consistently held that the policy statements of Chapter 7 are merely advisory and not binding.”); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 360 (11th Cir.1996) (“We have unequivocally held that the Chapter 7 policy statements are merely advisory, i.e., they are not binding.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terry
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir.1996); see United States v. Torrez-Flores, 624 F.2d 776, 780 (7th Cir.1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Raymond Braddock Hill
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362-63 (11th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Hardy
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 360 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Kido
See, e.g., United States v. LaValle, 175 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.1999) ("[W]e express no opinion on an appropriate sentence for [defendant] once his sentence is reopened.”); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 364 (11th Cir.1996) ("Of course, we express no opinion on what might constitute such an appropriate modification [of sentence]."); United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336, 340 (10th Cir.1996) (expressing "no opinion on an appropriate sentence after reopening[,]" but noting that under the applicable sentencing statute in that case “it [wa]s still within the discretion of the [trial] co…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Venester Fayne
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362-63 (11th Cir.1996) (stating that, on revoking supervised release, district court may impose sentence in excess of recommended Guideline range as long as sentence is within statutory maximum).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Elizabeth Dianne Beason
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362-63 (1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Neal O'Hara Daniels
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362-63 (11th Cir.1996). *884 require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in such term of supervised release, ... except that a defendant ... may not be required to serve on any such revocation ... more than 3 years in prison if such offense is a Class B felony[.] *885 Because the record demonstrates that (1) Daniels’s sentence legally was imposed; (2) the district court’s denial of his request for a longer term of imprisonment, rather than an additional ter…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Charles Wesley Edwards
A sentence in excess of the Chapter 7 range is not a departure, and is permitted so long as it is within the range imposed by Congress.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arthur Lee Williams
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 360 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jannice Frank
Frank’s claim that the district court erred and violated Frank’s due process rights by imposing a sentence above the presumptive guideline range, without allegedly considering the Chapter 7policy statements Ordinarily, we review “the district court’s decision to exceed the Chapter 7 sentencing range for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 361 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Andre Kanaya
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tamara Lynn Goodall
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 360 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Patricia June Anderson
A(l), (3)(a); Cook, 291 F.3d at 1301 ; United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 361 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Milano, 32 F.3d 1499, 1503 (11th Cir.1994), superceded on other grounds by, Cook, 291 F.3d at 1300 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rayvell Eugene Johnson
A(1), (3)(a); Cook, 291 F.3d at 1301; United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 361 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Milano, 32 F.3d 1499, 1503 (11th Cir.1994), superceded on other grounds by, Cook, 291 F.3d at 1300.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jacquetta K. Sturkey
We normally review “the district court’s decision to exceed the Chapter 7 sentencing range for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 361 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Leslie Richardson
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362-63 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shawn L. Poellnitz
Several circuit courts have noted that ”[a] certified copy of a conviction is proper evidence that a defendant violated a state or federal law and, thereby, violated a condition of his supervised release.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363-64 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (citing cases); see also United States v. Fleming, 9 F.3d 1253, 1254 (7th Cir.1993) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Poellnitz
Rather, it is a statement of unwillingness to contest the 8 Several circuit courts have noted government’s charges and an acceptance that “[a] certified copy of a conviction is of the punishment that would be meted out proper evidence that a defendant violated to a guilty person.”). a state or federal law and, thereby, On the other hand, if state law violated a condition of his supervised release.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363-64 (11th Cir. 1996) (per 7 In Adedoyin, the defendant at trial curium) (citing cases); see also United sought to exclude a California conviction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Garza-Ceballos
A revocation proceeding “is not the proper forum in which to attack the conviction giving rise to the revocation.” United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996); see United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827, 828-30 (5th Cir. 1975) (attempting to undermine the validity of the conviction that resulted in imposition of a term of supervised release).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rey Garcia
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See id.; United States v. Shaw, 180 F.3d 920, 922-23 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam); United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 63, 70-71 (2d Cir.1997); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam); United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87 , 93 n. 13 (5th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brown
United States v. Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551, 555 (3d Cir.1997); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 361 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sandra Cook
A(l), (3)(a); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 361 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Milano, 32 F.3d 1499, 1503 (11th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bruce, Floyd
See United States v. Brown, 203 F.3d 557, 558 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam); United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1120-22 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551, 552-55 (3d Cir.1997) (per curiam); United States v. Cohen, 99 F.3d 69, 70-71 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1213 , 117 S.Ct. 1699 , 137 L.Ed.2d 825 (1997); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 360-61 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1071 , 117 S.Ct. 717 , 136 L.Ed.2d 636 (1997); United States v. Escamilla, 70 F.3d 835, 835 (5th Cir.1995) (per curiam), cert. denied, 517 U.S. …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kanode
See United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. McClanahan, 136 F.3d 1146, 1149 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. *231 Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551, 552 (3d Cir.1997); United States v. Cohen, 99 F.3d 69, 70-71 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 360-61 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Escamilla, 70 F.3d 835 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. West, 59 F.3d 32, 34-37 (6th Cir.1995). * Pursuant to Anders , this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jackson
United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 317 (11th Cir.1993); United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827, 828 (5th Cir.1975); United States v. Torrez-Flores, 624 F.2d 776, 779 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Thomas, 934 F.2d 840, 846 (7th Cir.1991); Brown v. Warden, 351 F.2d 564, 566-567 (7th Cir.1965) (“The inquiry of the court at such a hearing is not directed to the probationer’s guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal prosecution, but to the truth of the accu…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wilson
See United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. McClanahan, 136 F.3d 1146, 1149 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551, 552 (3d Cir.1997); United States v. Cohen, 99 F.3d 69, 70-71 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1213 , 117 S.Ct. 1699 , 137 L.Ed.2d 825 (1997); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 360-61 (11th Cir.1996), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 1071 , 117 S.Ct. 717 , 136 L.Ed.2d 636 (1997); United States v. Escamilla, 70 F.3d 835 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1127 , 116 S.Ct. 1368 , 134 L.Ed.2d 533 (1996); United States v. Wes…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Vasquez-Soto
“All discussions of applicable sentences before a district court following -7- the revocation of supervised release ‘should be grounded in the common understanding that the district court may impose any sentence within the statutory maximum.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Hofierka , 83 F.3d 357, 362 (11th Cir. 1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker v. United States
CONCLUSION The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 6 Our decision aligns with this circuit’s indication in United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 364 (11th Cir. 1996)(citing Custis, and stating that if defendant’s “conviction is reversed, he may seek appropriate modification of his supervised release revocation sentence at that time”). 6 HILL, Senior Circuit Judge, specially concurring: As the appellant government concedes, seven other circuits to consider this issue have either held or indicated, without expressly deciding, in appellee Walker’s favor.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker v. United States
(2×)
The application of Congressionally mandated Sentencing Guidelines provide mathematically computed sentences; charging discretion in prosecutors may well fix a 6 Our decision aligns with this circuit's indication in United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 364 (11th Cir.1996)(citing Custis, and stating that if defendant's "conviction is reversed, he may seek appropriate modification of his supervised release revocation sentence at that time"). sentence before indictment.
United States
v.
Hofierka
v.
Hofierka
95-2151.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 16, 1996.
83 F.3d 357
Cited by 106 opinions | Published
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Nos. 95-2151, 95-2258.
Non-Argument Calendars.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael A. HOFIERKA, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ronald Carl ANDREWS, a/k/a "Barracuda", Defendant-Appellant.
Aug. 28, 1996.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Nos. 93-67-CR-J-20, 88-60-Cr-J-20); Harvey E.
Eleventh Circuit.
Nos. 95-2151, 95-2258.
Non-Argument Calendars.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael A. HOFIERKA, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ronald Carl ANDREWS, a/k/a "Barracuda", Defendant-Appellant.
Aug. 28, 1996.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Nos. 93-67-CR-J-20, 88-60-Cr-J-20); Harvey E.
Schlesinger, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon consideration of the appellants' petition for panel rehearing, the same is granted; and the opinion filed in this case on May 16, 1996, and published at 83 F.3d 357, is modified in one respect. Footnote 7 of the opinion is deleted.
In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.