UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4810
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARVIN ALEXANDER WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:11-cr-00350-RMG-1)
Submitted: November 24, 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter M. McCoy, Jr.,
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Nick Bianchi, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Wright appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and
imposition of 60 months’ imprisonment. Wright raises two arguments on appeal: The
government erroneously withheld certain evidence in violation of Wright’s due process
rights, and insufficient evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that Wright
possessed drugs. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Supervised release revocation hearings are not “criminal prosecutions” under the
Sixth Amendment. United States v. Ward, 770 F.3d 1090, 1097 (4th Cir. 2014). “[T]hus,
the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to [supervised
release] revocations.” Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972). Here, Wright was
only entitled to the “minimum requirements of due process” and the requirements of
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2). See id. at 488–89; Ward, 770 F.3d at 1098.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court’s discovery orders provided
for sufficient due process and, to the extent Wright identified evidence that the district court
declined to provide, the court did not err in denying Wright’s requests.
Turning to Wright’s sufficiency argument, we review the district court’s revocation
of supervised release for abuse of discretion and its factual determinations underlying the
conclusion that a violation occurred for clear error. United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d
185, 190 (4th Cir. 2019). A district court need only find a supervised release violation by
a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)). Based on our review
of the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence adduced at the revocation hearing
from which the district court could conclude that Wright possessed the drugs at issue.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral
arguments because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3