United States v. Corey Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY JAMEL DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00060-BO-1)
Submitted: February 11, 2014 Decided: February 20, 2014
Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Jamel Davis appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a
twenty-four month prison term. Davis argues that the district
court erred in finding that he engaged in criminal conduct while
on release. We affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). A district court
need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release
by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
(2012); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000).
We review for clear error factual determinations underlying the
conclusion that a violation occurred. United States v. Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Whalen,
82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996).
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Davis’ supervised release. A preponderance of the
evidence supports the finding that Davis violated the terms of
his supervised release by engaging in the criminal offense of
felony possession of heroin while on release. N.C. Gen. Stat.
§§ 90-89(2)j, 90-95(a)(3), (d)(1) (2013); State v. Matias,
2
556 S.E.2d 269, 270-71 (N.C. 2001); State v. Brown, 313 S.E.2d
585, 589 (N.C. 1984).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3