United States v. Jamar Woody , 588 F. App'x 288 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4365
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMAR BERNARD WOODY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Glen E. Conrad, Chief
    District Judge. (7:05-cr-00110-GEC-1)
    Submitted:   December 18, 2014             Decided:   December 22, 2014
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry W. Shelton,       Federal Public Defender, Fay F. Spence,
    Assistant Federal      Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellant. Timothy     J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, R. Andrew
    Bassford, Assistant     United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jamar     Bernard       Woody       appeals    the     twenty-seven-month
    sentence    imposed      upon      revocation      of     his     term   of    supervised
    release.    Finding no error, we affirm.
    Woody first contends that the district court erred by
    finding that he possessed a controlled substance without the
    admission of a lab report or the testimony of a chemist, and
    without    affording        him    the    opportunity        to    cross-examine        the
    chemist.    However, Woody admitted that the substance was his and
    that it was cocaine base.                In light of Woody’s admission, there
    was   no   need    for      testimony      or    cross-examination            as   to   this
    uncontested       fact. *       Rather,     in    view     of     Woody’s      admission,
    counsel’s statements, and evidence of the positive field test,
    the   district       court        appropriately,          and     without      objection,
    concluded that Woody violated the terms of his supervision by
    possessing crack cocaine.
    Woody      also       challenges       the     reasonableness          of    the
    sentence.     In determining the sentence to impose upon revocation
    *
    Woody’s reliance on United States v. Ferguson, 
    752 F.3d 613
    (4th Cir. 2014) and United States v. Doswell, 
    670 F.3d 526
    ,
    529 (4th Cir. 2012) for the proposition that a laboratory
    certificate of analysis is insufficient to prove the nature of a
    substance unless the lab chemist is available to testify and is
    available for cross-examination is misplaced.    In contrast to
    Woody’s case, the defendants in those cases did not admit to the
    nature of the substance.
    2
    of Woody’s supervised release, the district court considered the
    Chapter     Seven       policy        statements      in      the     U.S.     Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual, the statutory requirements, and the relevant
    factors    applicable          to   revocation       sentences       under     18    U.S.C.
    §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2012).                  The court also considered Woody’s
    request for a sentence at the low end of the range and the
    government’s argument for a sentence at the high end.                                Noting
    Woody’s    numerous       violations         and   the     short     time    between    his
    release    from     prison      and    his   violations,       the    court    imposed    a
    revocation sentence of twenty-seven months.                          This sentence is
    within     the    prescribed          statutory      range     and    is     not    plainly
    unreasonable.       See United States v. Crudup, 
    461 F.3d 433
    , 437-39
    (4th Cir. 2006).
    We     therefore        affirm     the    revocation       judgment.         We
    dispense     with       oral    argument       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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4365

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 288

Filed Date: 12/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023