UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4090
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREDERICK WILLIAM FARRINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00127-JAB-1)
Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: November 16, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United
States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick William Farrington appeals the district
court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and
sentencing him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment.
Farrington’s sole argument on appeal is that the Government
failed to satisfy its burden of producing competent evidence to
establish that the substance seized from his person was in fact
heroin. Farrington asserts that the field test administered by
the arresting officer, which confirmed that the seized substance
was a controlled substance, is unreliable and insufficient to
support the Government’s burden.
This court reviews a district court’s order imposing a
sentence after revocation of supervised release for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th
Cir. 1995). The district court abuses its discretion when it
fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or when its exercise
of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual
premise. James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993).
In a revocation proceeding, “findings of fact are made under a
preponderance-of-the-evidence, rather than reasonable-doubt,
standard, the traditional rules of evidence are inapplicable,
and the full panoply of constitutional protections afforded a
criminal defendant is not available.” United States v.
Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation
2
marks and citations 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, 862-63 (4th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Our review of the record convinces us that the
district court correctly concluded that Farrington committed the
alleged violations, particularly the violation of the
prohibition on committing any additional crimes, and properly
revoked his supervised release. 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
*
Because Farrington does not assert any challenge
pertaining to the revocation sentence, we have not reviewed that
issue. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6
(4th Cir. 1999).
3