United States v. Mitchell

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Mitchell appeals his 24-month sentence imposed for violating the terms of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The first issue raised is whether the district court erred when it based its sentencing determination in part on Mitchell’s nolo contendré plea in state court to assault with a deadly weapon. We conclude that the district court did not err. See Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 556 , 100 S.Ct. 1358 , 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980) (stating that “a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.”) (internal quotations omitted).

The next issue raised is whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 was violated when the district court considered a statement from the probation officer concerning an admission by Mitchell that he had possessed a weapon, which was brought to light for the first time at the disposition hearing. Because the gun possession was not alleged as a violation, and Mitchell was able to cross examine the probation officer, did not ask for a…