Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

United States v. Elliot Walker

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-14195
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (19.4K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 1 of 11

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

---

No. 24-14195
Non-Argument Calendar

---

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

ELLIOT TOMETRIUS WALKER,
a.k.a. Georgia Boy,
Defendant-Appellant.

---

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00029-MW-MAF-1

---

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Elliot Walker appeals the revocation of his supervised re-
lease and his resulting sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 2 of 11

2 Opinion of the Court 24-14195

Walker brings three issues on appeal, which we address in turn.
After review, we affirm.
I. VIOLATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
Walker first contends the district court clearly erred in find-
ing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he possessed a sub-
stance containing fentanyl with intent to distribute in violation of
a mandatory condition of his supervised release. Walker contends
the Government did not provide direct evidence linking him to the
alleged sale of fentanyl, as there was only direct evidence pointing
to “Rome’s brother.” Walker asserts the Government’s circum-
stantial proof of identity was insufficient to meet its burden.
A district court may revoke a term of supervised release
“upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the de-
fendant violated a condition of his supervised release.” United
States v. Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (quota-
tion marks omitted). Possession with intent to distribute can be
proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. United States v. Poole,
878 F.2d 1389, 1391-92 (11th Cir. 1989). Even if a defendant’s hy-
pothesis is “supported by some modicum of evidence,” the fact-
finder is “free to choose between or among the reasonable conclu-
sions to be drawn from the evidence presented.” United States v.
Williams, 865 F.3d 1328, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks
omitted).
The district court’s finding that Walker possessed a sub-
stance containing fentanyl with the intent to distribute was not
clearly erroneous. The undisputed evidence showed the
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 3 of 11

24-14195 Opinion of the Court 3

cooperating subject (CS) called a narcotics source using a phone
number matching the phone number Walker provided to his pro-
bation officer. Similarly, the controlled purchase between the CS
and his source occurred at an address matching the address Walker
provided to his probation officer. Leading up to the controlled pur-
chase, Tallahassee Police Department Investigator Andrew Mixon
observed a white Honda entering the neighborhood with a Geor-
gia license plate that he knew Walker operated from previous in-
vestigations, which also matched the vehicle Walker listed in his
monthly probation report and Georgia registered vehicle records.
The CS also exclaimed, “[t]hat’s him,” when the white Honda
drove past. The evidence was sufficient for the district court to
conclude that Walker drove the Honda. See Williams, 865 F.3d at
1345-46. It was also reasonable for the district court to choose
among the reasonable conclusions that “Rome’s brother,” who
drove a 2004 Honda, had the same phone number, and the same
address as the information Walker provided to his probation of-
ficer, was indeed referring to Elliot Walker.1 See id.
Next, ample evidence supports that Walker intended to dis-
tribute fentanyl. As discussed above, the CS contacted a fentanyl

1 Walker contends the Government failed to prove his identity as the drug

seller to the CS because “Rome” has six brothers and there was no evidence
whether the brothers shared common household resources. The Govern-
ment was not required to affirmatively disprove this theory. See United States
v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 979 (11th Cir. 1984) (“[E]vidence need not exclude
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with
every conclusion except that of guilt.”).
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 4 of 11

4 Opinion of the Court 24-14195

source to set up a controlled purchase who had the same phone
number and address as Walker. Investigator Mixon searched the
CS to ensure he had no drugs on him before making the controlled
purchase. And upon the CS’s return, he was immediately searched,
and drug contraband was recovered, which was tested and con-
firmed to contain fentanyl. Even though law enforcement did not
have eyes on the actual transaction, Investigator Mixon testified the
CS came back to his car relatively quickly, and Tallahassee Police
Department Officer Glenn Farmer testified the CS made “very
brief” contact with the source. The district court went through
several “what if” scenarios, including losing sight of the CS, the fact
the CS had a criminal history and was potentially unreliable, and
the potential the CS could have gone to a different house. As the
court put it, the different versions of what happened and the details
presented all coincided.
Lastly, there is no requirement in a supervised release revo-
cation hearing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant
committed the alleged acts. See Cunningham, 607 F.3d at 1266. De-
spite the Government dropping the charges on the basis it might
not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, that is not the
standard here. The record shows the court used the proper stand-
ard of a preponderance of the evidence in making its findings.
Considering the record, the court reasonably concluded, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that Walker possessed a sub-
stance containing fentanyl with the intent to distribute. See Poole,
878 F.2d at 1391-92. As this finding was not clearly erroneous, the
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 5 of 11

24-14195 Opinion of the Court 5

revocation of his supervised release was not an abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 112 (11th Cir. 1994) (review-
ing a district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of
discretion); F.T.C. v. Wash. Data Res., Inc., 704 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th
Cir. 2013) (explaining it is an abuse of discretion if a court bases its
decision on findings of fact that are clearly erroneous).
II. ADMISSION OF HEARSAY
Second, Walker asserts the district court erred by relying on
hearsay testimony to find him guilty of violating his supervised re-
lease. He contends the district court failed to conduct a balancing
test. He asserts that, through double hearsay, evidence was admit-
ted that the CS told law enforcement, who told Investigator Mixon,
that he could purchase fentanyl from Rome’s brother. He con-
tends there is no explanation as to why the CS was not produced
to testify, and thus, the district court could not conduct the re-
quired balancing test.
The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in supervised
release revocation hearings. Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114. However, alt-
hough the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to supervised
release revocation hearings, it does not mean the admission of
hearsay testimony is “automatic.” Id. Defendants in revocation
hearings are entitled to certain minimal due process requirements,
including the right to confront and cross-examine adverse wit-
nesses. Id.; see also Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972). As
such, when determining whether to admit hearsay testimony at su-
pervised release revocation hearings, the district court “must
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 6 of 11

6 Opinion of the Court 24-14195

balance the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses against
the grounds asserted by the government for denying confronta-
tion.” Id.
A district court may admit hearsay evidence when there are
“sufficient indicia of reliability, the court makes explicit findings of
fact as to credibility, and the defendant has an opportunity to rebut
the evidence.” United States v. Zlatogur, 271 F.3d 1025, 1031 (11th
Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted) (admitting hearsay in a sen-
tencing hearing). To successfully challenge a district court’s revo-
cation of a term of supervised release on the basis that it relied on
improper hearsay evidence, a defendant must show “(1) that the
challenged evidence is materially false or unreliable and (2) that it
actually served as the basis for the sentence.” United States v. Taylor,
931 F.2d 842, 847 (11th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks omitted).
“[T]he defendant bears the burden of showing that the court explic-
itly relied on the information.” Id. Even if the district court failed
to conduct a Frazier balancing test and erred in admitting and rely-
ing on hearsay evidence, that error can be deemed harmless if the
court properly considered evidence that overwhelmingly demon-
strated that the defendant breached the terms of his supervised re-
lease. Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114.
The district court did not expressly conduct a Frazier balanc-
ing test despite admitting Investigator Mixon’s hearsay statements
about the CS identifying “Rome’s brother” as his source of fenta-
nyl. However, the district court explained there was sufficient in-
dicia of reliability because everything the CS “said came to pass,” it
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 7 of 11

24-14195 Opinion of the Court 7

made an explicit credibility finding based on corroborating evi-
dence from the officers’ coinciding testimony, and Walker had the
opportunity to rebut the evidence. See Zlatogur, 271 F.3d at 1031.
Specifically, Walker rebutted the evidence by pointing out the CS
never said the name “Elliot Walker.” Walker also explained the CS
did not offer which of Rome’s six brothers he was referring to, and
emphasized there was no evidence established by the Government
differentiating Rome’s brother’s vehicles, phone numbers, or ad-
dresses. It is thus clear that, while the court did not expressly dis-
cuss the Frazier balancing test on the record, the court understood
this statement was hearsay and properly balanced this statement
before admitting it. See Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114; Zlatogur, 271 F.3d at
1031.
Assuming, arguendo, the district court erred in admitting the
hearsay statement, this error is harmless because Walker has not
met his burden of showing the district court “explicitly relied on”
the testimony about the CS’s statement identifying “Rome’s
brother” as the source of supply when it found Walker guilty of
violating the terms of his supervised release. See Frazier, 26 F.3d at
114; Taylor¸ 931 F.2d at 847. The record, instead, reflects the district
court relied on (1) Investigator Mixon’s testimony about the oper-
ational plan to make the controlled fentanyl purchase, where he
identified a white Honda as Walker’s vehicle which he knew from
previous investigations; (2) Officer Farmer’s testimony regarding
his observations of two people meeting then separating, which co-
incided with the description Investigator Mixon provided; (3) the
CS returning to Investigator Mixon with a substance that tested
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 8 of 11

8 Opinion of the Court 24-14195

positive for containing fentanyl; and (4) United States Probation
Officer Andrew Swope’s testimony corroborating the information
related to Walker’s phone number, address, and vehicle. The court
also stated it could not “rely on hearsay alone and [it] ha[d] to look
at the hearsay and see if it’s corroborated.” Based on the coinciding
testimony presented at sentencing, the district court found there
was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding that
Walker breached the terms of his supervised release. Because any
potential Frazier error was harmless, and because the evidence
overwhelmingly demonstrated that Walker did, in fact, breach the
terms of his supervised release, the district court did not err when
it found Walker guilty of violating his supervised release.
III. RELIANCE ON AN IMPERMISSIBLE FACTOR
Third, Walker contends his revocation sentence was proce-
durally unreasonable because the district court improperly relied
on retribution concerns under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(2)(A). Section
3583(e) governs permissive release revocation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e).
Under the statute, a district court may, upon finding by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that a defendant has violated a condition
of supervised release, revoke the term of supervised release and im-
pose a term of imprisonment after considering some, but not all,
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). Id. The § 3553(a) factors
require the sentencing court to consider (1) the nature and circum-
stances of the offense, (2) the history and characteristics of the de-
fendant, (3) the applicable Guidelines range, and (4) the need to
provide the defendant with needed training, medical care, or cor-
rectional treatment. Id. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(D), (4); 3583(e).
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 9 of 11

24-14195 Opinion of the Court 9

Additional factors include pertinent policy statements of the Sen-
tencing Commission, protecting the public from the defendant’s
future criminal conduct, affording adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct, avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities, and restitu-
tion to the victims. Id. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C), (5)-(7); 3583(e). Nota-
bly, § 3583(e) does not include 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(2)(A), which pro-
vides that the district court consider “the need for the sentence im-
posed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote re-
spect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.”
Id. § 3553(a)(2)(A).
The Supreme Court recently clarified that a district court
may not consider § 3553(a)(2)(A), or “the need to exact retribu-
tion for the defendant’s underlying crime” when revoking a de-
fendant’s term of supervised release. Esteras v. United States, 606
U.S. 185, 194-95 (2025). It reasoned that, when a defendant violates
the conditions of his supervised release, it makes sense that a court
“must consider the forward-looking ends of sentencing (deterrence,
incapacitation, and rehabilitation), but may not consider the back-
ward-looking purpose of retribution.” Id. at 196. The Court ex-
plained that a sentencing court may consider the needs to deter,
incapacitate, and rehabilitate, but it “cannot consider the nature
and circumstances of the [underlying] offense as relevant to
§ 3553(a)(2)(A)’s retributive focus.” Id. at 200. Notably, Esteras did
not consider whether retribution for the violation of the conditions
of supervised release can factor into a revocation decision. See id.
at 194 n.5 (“tak[ing] no position” on the Sentencing Commission’s
view that “the sentence imposed upon revocation is intended to
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 10 of 11

10 Opinion of the Court 24-14195

sanction the violator for failing to abide by the conditions of the
court-ordered supervision” (quotation marks and alteration omit-
ted)). The Supreme Court also made a “few observations” regard-
ing appellate review of this issue, noting that if the defendant failed
to make a district court aware that it may be impermissibly relying
on § 3553(a)(2)(A), then the defendant’s appeal of the issue is gov-
erned by plain-error review. Id. at 202. Under plain-error review,
the district court’s revocation order should be affirmed “unless it is
clear or obvious that the district court actually relied on
§ 3553(a)(2)(A)—because it did so expressly or by unmistakable im-
plication.” Id. at 202-03 (quotation marks omitted).
As Walker did not object on the basis that the district court
considered an impermissible § 3553(a) factor, we review for plain
error. See id. The district court did not plainly err because it is
neither clear nor obvious from the record that the district court re-
lied on § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing Walker’s sentence, as op-
posed to the “forward-looking ends” of deterrence, incapacitation,
and rehabilitation. See id. at 196, 202-03. For example, in explaining
its sentence at the revocation hearing, the district court considered
mitigating circumstances related to Walker’s rehabilitation, includ-
ing the fact he maintained consistent work during his term of su-
pervised release, reported to probation, and did not have repeated
violations. The court then emphasized that, after serving a lengthy
sentence for selling methamphetamine, he sold fentanyl upon his
release, which is deadly. This reflects the court’s focus on the need
to afford adequate deterrence and the need to protect the public
from Walker’s further crimes of distributing fentanyl in the
USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 11 of 11

24-14195 Opinion of the Court 11

community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(2)(B)-(C). So, even if the dis-
trict court did consider the need to exact retribution, it could have
done so not to punish Walker for his underlying criminal convic-
tion of selling methamphetamine, but to “sanction [him] for failing
to abide by the conditions of the court-ordered supervision” (i.e. by
failing to refrain from committing another federal, state, or local
crime)—an issue on which the Supreme Court took no position.
See Esteras, 606 U.S. at 194 n.5. Walker has failed to show the dis-
trict court plainly erred under Esteras.2
AFFIRMED.

2 Walker has abandoned any other challenge to the reasonableness of his rev-

ocation sentence by failing to raise such an argument on appeal. See United
States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022). In any event, the district
court considered the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a substantively reasonable
sentence. See United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating
we examine “whether the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors”).