United States v. Morris

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4358
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYRONE L. MORRIS, a/k/a Tote,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-00-7)
Submitted: September 15, 2004 Decided: September 29, 2004
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States
Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Randolph J. Bernard, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone L. Morris appeals from the district court’s
termination of his term of supervised release and ten-month prison
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2000). Morris served a
forty-four-month sentence for aiding and abetting the distribution
of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). He
was released to a three-year term of supervised release in
September 2003. Shortly thereafter, Morris committed several
violations of the terms of his supervised release, including public
intoxication and driving under the influence of alcohol. Morris
also failed to report these violations to his probation officer.
At his revocation hearing, Morris presented evidence that
he had strong family ties, was gainfully employed, and was
obtaining substance abuse treatment. He suggested several
alternatives to an additional term of incarceration. The district
court, however, terminated Morris’s term of supervised release and
sentenced him to a ten-month term of imprisonment. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
We review the district court’s decision to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). The 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)
(2000). The court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses
- 2 -
to exercise its discretion, when it fails to consider judicially
recognized factors circumscribing its exercise of discretion, or
when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or
factual premise. James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.
1993). We must overturn a district court’s exercise of its
discretion if the court’s decision, “considering the law and the
facts, was arbitrary or capricious.” United States v. Mason, 52
F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995). However, we may not substitute
our independent judgment for that of the district court. Id.We conclude the district court’s decision was clearly
based on principled reasoning and was not arbitrary or capricious.
We thus find that the court did not abuse its discretion in
terminating Morris’s supervised release and imposing an additional
term of imprisonment.
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
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -