UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5168
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID C. WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:00-cr-00155-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Lex A. Coleman,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate
Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, William B. King, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David C. White appeals the district court’s revocation
of his term of supervised release. On appeal, White argues that
the district court clearly erred in finding that he jointly
possessed ammunition found inside his home, and abused its
discretion in revoking his term of supervised release. 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) (2006). We review factual determinations informing
the conclusion that a violation occurred for clear error.
United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court neither clearly erred in finding that White
jointly possessed the ammunition found inside his home, nor
abused its discretion in revoking White’s 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
2