USA v. Jeffrey Whitlock, No. 10-30124 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, while under federal supervision, was arrested and charged in Ada County, Idaho for a number of state offenses and in light of the arrests, the government petitioned the district court to revoke defendant's federal supervised release. At issue was whether probation officers' sentencing recommendations following the revocation of supervised release must be disclosed. The court held that post-revocation sentencing recommendations, like post-conviction sentencing recommendations, must be disclosed unless the district court directed otherwise by local rule or by order in a case. Therefore, the court held that the district court complied with United States v. Baldrich's requirements that the court disclose any factual information in the confidential recommendation on which it relied in sentencing. The court also held that Rule 32(e)(3) and its implementing local rule counterpart, District of Idaho Local Criminal Rule 32.1, comported with the Equal Protection Clause and there was no violation of defendant's constitutional rights.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.