October 2, 2019
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No.
3:15-cr-00016-RLM-MGG-1 - Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge.
Bauer, Ripple, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges.
Shockey appeals from the district court's order revoking
his supervised release and imposing a 15-month prison
sentence. The district court found that Shockey not only used
methamphetamine but also possessed it, a Grade B violation of
one of his supervised-release conditions. Shockey challenges
this classification. Because the district court reasonably
could infer possession from use, we affirm the judgment.
on supervised release for possessing a firearm as a felon, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Shockey tested positive for
methamphetamine, which he later admitted using. Because
Shockey violated the condition that he not use a controlled
substance, a probation officer petitioned to revoke
his supervision. The officer prepared a "Summary Report
of Violations" charging Shockey with a Grade B violation
for conduct constituting an offense punishable by a prison
term exceeding one year. See U.S.S.G. §
revocation hearing, Shockey asked the district court to find
that he had merely used methamphetamine, rather than
possessed it. (Use is a less serious Grade C that
does not mandate revocation. See U.S.S.G. §
7B1.3(a)(1)). His conduct, he argued, violated the
requirement of his supervised-release condition to refrain
from using drugs-a violation that is not a felony, but
instead merely a Grade C violation of "any other
condition of supervision."
district court rejected Shockey's argument. It found that
the Guidelines could not be "reasonably read to make
this a Grade C violation"; the violation had to be
"either a Grade A or a Grade B." The court
implicitly accepted the government's reliance on
United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150, 1153 (7th
Cir. 2001), which held that marijuana use supports an
inference of marijuana possession. The district court thus
found that Shockey had both possessed and used
methamphetamine-a Grade B violation that corresponded to a
sentencing range of 21 to 24 months in prison. The court
sentenced him below that range to 15 months, acknowledging
the need for a "significant period of
incarceration" but recognizing that Shockey had stayed
sober for 7 months before using methamphetamine and committed
no other crimes.
appeal, Shockey maintains that the district court erred in
classifying his violation as Grade B without finding that he
violated any law prohibiting possession of a controlled
substance that was statutorily punishable by more than a year
in prison. Although it would have been good practice for the
court to cite a specific statute, Shockey was entitled only
to fair, written notice of the alleged conduct underlying his
Grade B violation. See United States v. Lee, 795
F.3d 682, 686-87 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.1(b)(2)). Here, Shockey was notified before the hearing by
the probation officer in writing that he was alleged to have
violated § 35-48-4-6.1 of the Indiana Code (titled
"Possession of methamphetamine"), and that this
constituted a Grade B violation because the offense is
punishable by more than one year in prison. Moreover, in the
district court Shockey did not dispute that possession of
methamphetamine is punishable as such. Because the report
plainly identified the statute that Shockey was alleged to
have violated and the district court resolved all issues of
fact on the record, no error occurred. See United States
v. Tapia, 610 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir. 2010).
Shockey relatedly argues that his use of methamphetamine did
not require a finding that he also possessed methamphetamine.
But he misapprehends the district court's ruling. The
court did find that he possessed methamphetamine,
which in Indiana is punishable by more than a year in prison.
See Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-6.1, 35-50-2-7.
The district court reasonably could infer possession from
use. See United States v. Barnes, 883 F.3d 955, 958
(7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d
1150, 1153 (7th Cir. 2001). "Inferring possession of a
drug from the consumption of that drug is just as sensible as
inferring, from the statement 'I ate a hamburger for
lunch/ that the person possessed the hamburger before wolfing
it down." Trotter, 270 F.3d at 1153.
 Condition 3 stated: "The
defendant shall not unlawfully use any controlled substance,
including marijuana, and shall submit to one drug test within
15 days of the beginning of supervision and at least 2
periodic tests after that ...