Case: 20-50937 Document: 00516003814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 7, 2021
No. 20-50937 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Zackie Thomas Reed, IV,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:11-CR-401-1
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Zackie Thomas Reed, IV, pleaded guilty to three counts of possession
of pseudoephedrine knowing that it would be used to manufacture
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). The district court
sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment—which was later reduced to
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50937 Document: 00516003814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2021
No. 20-50937
100 months—and three years of supervised release. Following a revocation
hearing, the district court determined that Reed had violated the conditions
of supervision by committing another federal, state, or local crime and by
unlawfully possessing a control substance. The district court revoked Reed’s
supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months of imprisonment with no
additional term of supervised release.
On appeal, Reed argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that
he unlawfully possessed a controlled substance, methamphetamine.
Specifically, he contends that the Government failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence—either through a field test, laboratory
analysis, or competent testimony—that the substance found on his person
was in fact methamphetamine.
The district court could revoke Reed’s supervised release if it found
by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated a condition of his
supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Hinson, 429
F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d
479, 481 (5th Cir. 2005). The evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn
from it, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, supports
that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Reed was in possession of
a substance that was more likely than not methamphetamine. See United
States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, the arresting
officer testified that he found a clear baggie on Reed’s person containing a
substance that he believed was methamphetamine based on his training with
methamphetamine and experience as an officer of the police department’s
narcotics unit. The arresting officer also found drug paraphernalia, including
a glass methamphetamine pipe and multiple empty baggies, inside Reed’s
vehicle. Furthermore, prior to the initiation of the traffic stop, the arresting
officer observed Reed leaving a residence whose owner was the target of a
narcotics investigation.
2
Case: 20-50937 Document: 00516003814 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/07/2021
No. 20-50937
The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in revoking Reed’s
supervised release. See Spraglin, 418 F.3d at 480.
AFFIRMED.
3