United States v. Elliot Walker

── United States v. Elliot Walker ── Case No.: 24-14195 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 17, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-14195 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14195 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF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 kn