United States v. Armstrong

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Armstrong

3 F. App'x 109

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

Docket00-4568

StatusUnpublished

This text of 3 F. App'x 109 (United States v. Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Armstrong, 3 F. App'x 109 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Oliver M. Armstrong appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. In 1999, Armstrong was released from incarceration and began serving a term of supervised release imposed pursuant to his 1995 conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). In 2000, Armstrong’s probation officer moved to revoke Armstrong’s supervised release based on criminal conduct that included driving while his license was revoked and for the threat, assault, and false imprisonment of his girlfriend, Margaret McClease.

At the revocation hearing, the district court heard testimony that revealed the stormy and violent relationship between Armstrong and McClease. The district court disbelieved Armstrong’s version of events and sentenced him to thirty months incarceration. On appeal, Armstrong asserts the district court abused its discretion by limiting Armstrong’s questioning of McClease and hindering his efforts to show her bias.

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. District court judges have wide discretion to determine the relevance of offered testimony, and these determinations are not disrupted save in extraordinary circumstances. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 154-55 (4th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Heyward, 729 F.2d 297, 301 n. 2 (4th Cir.1984)). We will not review the district court’s findings regarding the witnesses’ credibility. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Armstrong’s supervised release. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Oliver M. Armstrong appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. In 1999, Armstrong was released from incarceration and began serving a term of supervised release imposed pursuant to his 1995 conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). In 2000, Armstrong’s probation officer moved to revoke Armstrong’s supervised release based on criminal conduct that included driving while his license was revoked and for the threat, assault, and false imprisonment of his girlfriend, Margaret McClease.

At the revocation hearing, the district court heard testimony that revealed the stormy and violent relationship between Armstrong and McClease. The district court disbelieved Armstrong’s version of events and sentenced him to thirty months incarceration. On appeal, Armstrong asserts the district court abused its discretion by limiting Armstrong’s questioning of McClease and hindering his efforts to show her bias.

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. District court judges have wide discretion to determine the relevance of offered testimony, and these determinations are not disrupted save in extraordinary circumstances. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 154-55 (4th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Heyward, 729 F.2d 297, 301 n. 2 (4th Cir.1984)). We will not review the district court’s findings regarding the witnesses’ credibility. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Armstrong’s supervised release. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F. App'x 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-armstrong-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack