UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4146
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON MICHAEL DUNFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:05-cr-00003-gec-6)
Submitted: July 13, 2010 Decided: July 26, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill,
Allegra M.C. Black, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Ashley B. Neese, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Dunford appeals the district court’s amended
judgment finding he violated the terms of supervised release and
revoking supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four
months’ imprisonment. Dunford claims the evidence was
insufficient to find that he violated the terms of supervised
release. We affirm.
We review a district court’s judgment revoking
supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th
Cir. 1992). To revoke supervised release, 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) (2006);
id. This burden “simply requires the trier of fact to believe
that the existence of a fact is more probable than its
nonexistence.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy
burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.
1997). In determining whether the evidence in the record is
substantial, this Court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d
849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
2
We hold there was more than sufficient evidence to
show by a preponderance of the evidence that Dunford violated
the terms of supervised release because he was found in
possession of child pornography.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s amended
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