[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11614 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KH’LAJUWON AMARI MURAT,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-tp-20072-KMW-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-11614 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2025 Page: 2 of 14

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11614

Before JORDAN and BRASHER, Circuit Judges, and COVINGTON,∗ Dis- trict Judge. BRASHER, Circuit Judge: The question in this appeal is whether a district court may rule on a limited number of counts in a petition to revoke super- vised release, hold other counts in abeyance, and adjudicate those counts later. The government asked the district court to revoke Kh’Lajuwon Murat’s supervised release due to seven alleged viola- tions. After a hearing, the district court revoked Murat’s supervised release based on violations that he admitted and held the others in abeyance. The district court sentenced Murat to five months’ im- prisonment and 54 months’ supervised release. Then, on Murat’s final day of the five months’ imprisonment, the district court held a second hearing, ruled on the remaining violations, and sentenced Murat to four months’ imprisonment and 48 months’ supervised release. Murat challenges this “second” revocation. He contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hold in abeyance and adjudicate the alleged violations in the petition after it revoked his supervised release based on other alleged violations in the same pe- tition. We disagree. The first revocation of supervised release did not end the district court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged vi- olations that it had held in abeyance from a petition that was filed

∗ The Honorable Virginia Covington, United States District Judge for the Mid- dle District of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 24-11614 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2025 Page: 3 of 14

24-11614 Opinion of the Court 3

before the revocation. The judgment and sentence of the district court is affirmed. I.

Murat was found guilty of bank fraud, identity theft, and a host of other charges. He was sentenced to 24 months and one day of imprisonment, to be followed by three years’ supervised release. On January 17, 2023, Murat was released from prison and his term of supervised release began. A few months after Murat’s release, the government peti- tioned the district court to issue a warrant for Murat’s arrest on the basis that he violated the terms of his release. Specifically, the gov- ernment alleged that Murat (1) failed to submit a truthful and com- plete written monthly report; (2) traveled to California without the permission of his probation officer or the court; (3) associated with a person engaged in criminal activity because two individuals had been observed at his residence smoking marijuana; (4) fa