United States v. Corey Davis

555 F. App'x 249
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 2014
Docket13-4376
StatusUnpublished

This text of 555 F. App'x 249 (United States v. Corey Davis) 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. Corey Davis, 555 F. App'x 249 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*250 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, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (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 — S9(2)j, 90 — 95(a)(3), (d)(1) (2013); State v. Matias, 354 N.C. 549, 556 S.E.2d 269, 270-71 (2001); State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 313 S.E.2d 585, 589 (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.

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

Related

Johnson v. United States
529 U.S. 694 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Whalen
82 F.3d 528 (First Circuit, 1996)
United States v. George Lloyd Pregent
190 F.3d 279 (Fourth Circuit, 1999)
State v. Brown
313 S.E.2d 585 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1984)
State v. Matias
556 S.E.2d 269 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2001)
United States v. Miller
557 F.3d 910 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
555 F. App'x 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-corey-davis-ca4-2014.