The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the revocation of supervised release for Taureen Nickles, who repeatedly violated conditions of his post-prison supervision following convictions for armed robberies of three Cincinnati businesses.
In an opinion filed Feb. 2, 2026, a three-judge panel rejected all of Nickles' arguments challenging the district court's decision to revoke his supervised release. Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote the opinion, joined by Circuit Judges William Clay and Amul Thapar.
Nickles' legal troubles began in October 2014 when he and several accomplices robbed three Cincinnati businesses at gunpoint during a single night of criminal activity. The armed robberies resulted in federal charges, and Nickles eventually pleaded guilty in 2016 to two counts of violating the Hobbs Act, which criminalizes robbery affecting interstate commerce.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sentenced Nickles to 66 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. He began serving his supervised release term in April 2020, marking the start of what would become a troubled period of repeated violations.
The first revocation occurred in 2021 when Nickles admitted to two violations of his supervised release conditions. The violations included beating a woman unconscious and stealing her property, representing serious acts of violence and theft. Despite these admitted violations, the district court imposed a relatively lenient sentence of one day in prison, for which Nickles received credit for time served, followed by an additional two years of supervised release.
However, Nickles' pattern of violating supervised release conditions continued. In 2023, the district court again revoked his supervised release after finding he had committed multiple new violations. Nickles admitted to two of the violations, which included stealing three televisions from a hotel where he had previously been employed. The court also found him guilty of a third violation involving domestic violence against his girlfriend.
According to court records, the domestic violence incident involved Nickles "slamming his girlfriend on a table" and "striking her in the arm with a cord." These actions demonstrated a continued pattern of violent behavior despite being under court supervision.
Following the 2023 violations, the district court revoked Nickles' supervised release and imposed additional sanctions. Nickles then appealed the revocation decision to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in its handling of the case.
The Sixth Circuit's opinion, marked "NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION," indicates the court viewed the case as presenting no novel legal issues warranting broader circulation. Such designations are common for routine appeals where established legal principles are applied to specific facts.
In rejecting Nickles' appeal, the three-judge panel found no error in the district court's decision to revoke supervised release. The opinion suggests that given Nickles' admitted violations and the court's finding of additional violations, the revocation was appropriate under federal sentencing guidelines and established precedent.
Supervised release serves as a critical component of federal criminal sentences, designed to help defendants reintegrate into society while ensuring public safety. When defendants violate the conditions of their supervised release, courts have authority to impose sanctions ranging from warnings to revocation and additional imprisonment.
The case highlights the challenges faced by individuals transitioning from prison back into society and the consequences of failing to comply with court-ordered supervision. Nickles' repeated violations, including violent crimes and theft, demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to abide by the terms of his supervised release.
The Hobbs Act violations that led to Nickles' original conviction carry serious federal penalties due to their impact on interstate commerce. Armed robberies of businesses often fall under federal jurisdiction when they affect commerce that crosses state lines, allowing federal prosecutors to pursue charges that typically carry more severe sentences than state crimes.
The Sixth Circuit's affirmance means Nickles has exhausted his direct appeal rights regarding the supervised release revocation. The decision reinforces federal courts' authority to revoke supervised release when defendants commit new crimes or violate other conditions of their supervision.
This case also demonstrates the court system's efforts to balance rehabilitation with public safety concerns. While Nickles received a relatively lenient sentence after his first set of violations in 2021, his continued criminal behavior ultimately led to stricter sanctions.
The pattern of escalating violations in Nickles' case reflects broader challenges within the federal supervised release system, where some defendants struggle to maintain compliance with court-ordered conditions after serving prison terms. The case underscores the importance of effective supervision and intervention programs designed to prevent recidivism among federal offenders.