United States v. Eric Nixon , 550 F. App'x 171 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4617
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC NIXON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00131-CMC-12)
Submitted: January 13, 2014 Decided: January 21, 2014
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Nixon appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and imposing a twenty-four-month
prison term. Nixon argues that the district court erred by
failing to suppress marijuana seized from his person on December
14, 2012, allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and
further erred in finding that he engaged in new criminal
conduct, namely possession of marijuana with the intent to
distribute it. We affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). A 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); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000).
We review for clear error factual determinations underlying the
conclusion that a violation occurred. United States v. Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Whalen,
82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996).
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Nixon’s supervised release. Nixon’s claim that the
marijuana seized during the December 14 stop should have been
suppressed fails because the exclusionary rule does not apply in
2
federal supervised release revocation proceedings.
United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 393-95 (4th Cir.
1999). Further, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
court’s finding that Nixon violated the terms of his supervised
release by engaging in the criminal offense of possession with
intent to distribute marijuana while on release. S.C. Code Ann.
§ 44-53-370(a)(1) (Supp. 2013); State v. Goldsmith, 392 S.E.2d
787, 788 (S.C. 1990); Matthews v. State, 387 S.E.2d 258, 259
(S.C. 1990).
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3