United States v. Devon Faucett , 459 F. App'x 246 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4642
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEVON FAUCETT, a/k/a D,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00153-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, George H. Lancaster, Jr., Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, William B. King, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Devon Faucett was convicted of violating the terms of
his supervised release and was sentenced to twelve months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Faucett argues there was insufficient
evidence to support a finding that he violated his supervised
release by constructively possessing marijuana with the intent
to distribute, and that his sentence is plainly unreasonable as
a result. We affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). To revoke supervised
release, the district court need only find a violation of a
condition of release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18
U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2011). This burden “simply
requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a
fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” United States v.
Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We review for clear error factual findings
underlying the conclusion that a violation of supervised release
occurred. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th
Cir. 2003). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
the district court neither clearly erred in finding that Faucett
possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute, nor abused
its discretion in revoking Faucett’s supervised release.
2
Faucett also challenges his twelve-month sentence on
the sole ground that the district court improperly calculated
his policy statement range based on a Grade A violation, because
the court’s finding that he possesses marijuana with the intent
to distribute was clearly erroneous. As discussed above, this
claim is without merit. We therefore affirm Faucett’s sentence.
See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439–40 (4th Cir.
2006) (stating a sentence imposed following revocation of
supervised release will be affirmed if it is within the
applicable statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3