United States v. Gregory Fields ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-2468
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                  * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Gregory A. Fields,                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 7, 2008
    Filed: October 9, 2008
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    The district court1 revoked Gregory Fields’s supervised release and sentenced
    him to 8 months in prison after finding that Fields had used a controlled substance in
    violation of his release conditions. The court’s finding was based on test results from
    a sweat patch showing the presence of cocaine and/or cocaine metabolite. On appeal,
    Fields argues that the district court erred, because the court did not consider his efforts
    at drug counseling and his employment, and failed to give adequate weight to his
    argument that the sweat patch could have been contaminated.
    1
    The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Fields had
    violated his release conditions, and did not abuse its discretion in revoking his
    supervised release. It is undisputed that the sweat patch tested positive, and defense
    counsel did not present evidence as to how the patch might have been contaminated.
    See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (permitting revocation of supervised release if court finds
    by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of supervised release);
    United States v. Carothers, 
    337 F.3d 1017
    , 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (revocation based on
    finding of violation is reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court’s finding of
    violation is reviewed for clear error); see also United States v. Meyer, 
    483 F.3d 865
    ,
    869 (8th Cir. 2007) (concluding that sweat patch results are generally reliable method
    of determining probation violation, although there may be instances where offenders
    offer compelling reasons to believe positive test results from sweat patches are
    erroneous; district court should make such determination on case-by-case basis).
    We also conclude that the 8-month revocation sentence is not unreasonable as
    the record shows that the district court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
    in determining the sentence. See United States v. Tyson, 
    413 F.3d 824
    , 825 (8th Cir.
    2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in
    accordance with United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005)); United States v.
    Franklin, 
    397 F.3d 604
    , 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (all that is required is evidence that
    court considered relevant matters, not that court made specific findings on each
    § 3553(a) factor).
    Accordingly, we allow counsel to withdraw, and we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-2468

Judges: Murphy, Bye, Benton

Filed Date: 10/9/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024