UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4799
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN CORDERO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:96-cr-00358-JFA-14)
Submitted: March 13, 2008 Decided: March 31, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald
I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Cordero appeals the district court’s order revoking
his supervised release and sentencing him to a six-month term of
imprisonment. On appeal, Cordero contends that the district court
erred by revoking his supervised release because the government
failed to prove that he knowingly used cocaine. We affirm.
Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(g)(1) (West Supp. 2007),
revocation of supervised release is mandatory if the defendant
possessed a controlled substance in violation of the terms of his
supervised release. Proof that a defendant intentionally used a
controlled substance is sufficient to establish possession of that
substance within the meaning of § 3583(g). United States v.
Battle, 993 F.2d 49, 50 (4th Cir. 1993); see United States v.
Clark, 30 F.3d 23, 26 (4th Cir. 1994). A district court need only
find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a
preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000
& Supp. 2007); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000).
We have reviewed the record with these standards in mind and
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Cordero’s supervised release. See United States v.
Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating standard of
review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -