United States v. David White

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5168

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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