UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4768
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD F. PINKNEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-84)
Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George A. Townsend, IV, GEORGE A. TOWNSEND, IV, P.L.L.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
Michael J. Elston, Sara E. Flannery, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald F. Pinkney appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to sixty months’
imprisonment. On appeal, he contends the court abused its
discretion when it found by a preponderance of the evidence that he
committed a Grade A violation, possession with intent to distribute
marijuana, instead of a Grade C violation, possession of marijuana.
We affirm.
We review the district court’s decision to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). 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 district court found that Pinkney committed the crime
of possession with intent to distribute marijuana after hearing
uncontradicted testimony that Pinkney possessed ten bags of
marijuana in a backpack, three more on his person, and $1757 in
currency. We find that a preponderance of the evidence supported
the district court’s findings, and the district court did not abuse
its discretion. The district court was, therefore, statutorily
required to revoke supervised release and impose a prison term. 18
U.S.C. § 3583(g).
- 2 -
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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -