United States v. Larry Whitfield , 547 F. App'x 200 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4454
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY WHITFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00191-RLV-2)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Collin Joseph, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Courtney J. Bumpers,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Whitfield appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a
forty-six-month sentence. Whitfield argues that the district
court erred in concluding that he violated the terms of his
supervised release by distributing marijuana. He contends that
there was not a preponderance of the evidence demonstrating that
the substance was marijuana, and even if it was marijuana, that
Whitfield was involved in distribution, instead of mere
possession.
We review for an abuse of discretion a district
court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term
of imprisonment. United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282
(4th Cir. 1999); 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) (2012); Copley, 978 F.2d at
831. In this case, we conclude that the revocation did not
amount to an abuse of discretion, because Whitfield’s confession
to distribution and possession of marijuana was corroborated by
the evidence of distribution found at his house, including a
digital scale and baggies. Although the substance found in
Whitfield’s residence was not analyzed by a laboratory, the
officers testified that, based on their experience and training,
2
the substance looked and smelled like marijuana and was stored
in a suspicious place in the kitchen. We therefore conclude
that the court did not clearly err in finding a Class A felony.
We affirm the 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