United States v. Farris ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4104
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS E. FARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-03-212)
Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 22, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENER, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Stephanie L.
Haines, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In February 2004, Thomas E. Farris pled guilty to mail
theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (2000), and was sentenced
to twelve months in prison followed by three years of supervised
release. On September 23, 2004, Farris was released from prison
and began serving his term of supervised release. On December 20,
2004, Farris appeared before the district court on a motion for
revocation filed by his probation officer citing commission of a
crime, failing to inform probation of an arrest, and excessively
using alcohol. Farris disputed the claim that he committed a
crime. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence
that Farris had, in fact, stolen a wallet. The court revoked
Farris’ supervised release and sentenced him to eighteen months in
prison followed by six months of supervised release. We affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). The district
court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised
release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2004). This Court reviews factual
determinations informing the conclusion that a violation occurred
for clear error. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019
(8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st
Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
- 2 -
error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
decision process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -