United States v. Carroway

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4800
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TORIN DEMETRIUS CARROWAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-01146-RBH-3)
Submitted: January 11, 2011 Decided: February 4, 2011
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Allen Meetze, Federal Public Defender, Florence, South
Carolina; Aileen P. Clare, Research and Writing Specialist,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Torin Demetrius Carroway appeals from the district
court’s judgment revoking his probation and imposing a twelve
month and one day sentence. On appeal, Carroway’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court abused its discretion
in revoking Carroway’s probation. Carroway was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
Appellate courts review a district court’s decision to
revoke probation for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Bujak, 347 F.3d 607, 609 (6th Cir. 2003); Gov’t of the V.I. v.
Martinez, 239 F.3d 293, 301 (3d Cir. 2001). The district court
need find a violation of a term of probation by only a
preponderance of the evidence. Bujak, 347 F.3d at 609.
The probation officer moved to revoke Carroway’s
probation based on Carroway’s arrest for possession with intent
to distribute marijuana, a Grade A violation. Carroway admitted
that he possessed marijuana. At the time of his arrest,
Carroway was found with five packages of marijuana, individually
packaged in a manner consistent with distribution. Based on
this evidence, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
district court’s conclusion that Carroway possessed marijuana
2
with the intent to distribute it. We therefore conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Carroway’s probation.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no other meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the
district court. This court requires that counsel inform
Carroway, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Carroway requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a
petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy thereof was served on Carroway. 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