United States v. Mario Hernandez-Servera

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Mario Hernandez-Servera (“Hernandez”) appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and denying his motion challenging the constitutionality of the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583 . Hernandez argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e) is facially unconstitutional because it permits judges to find supervised release violations by a preponderance of the evidence instead of requiring a jury determination of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because supervised release revocation and criminal contempt share a similar purpose, similar elements, and similar underlying policy concerns, Hernandez contends that supervised release revocation is, at essence, the same as criminal contempt, and thus subject to the same due process requirements applicable to criminal contempt prosecutions.

“Supervised release is an integral part of the federal sentencing structure, similar in purpose and scope to its predecessor, parole.” United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.2006). The United States Supreme Court has held that parole revocation hearings are not equivalent to criminal prosecutions, and due process does not…