United States v. Thomas Farris , 672 F. App'x 286 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4127
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS E. FARRIS, a/k/a Thomas Edgar Farris, a/k/a Thomas
Farris,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00030-1; 2:12-cr-00217-1)
Submitted: October 27, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard W. Weston, WESTON LAW OFFICE, Huntington, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Carol A. Casto, United States Attorney, Lisa G.
Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas E. Farris appeals the revocation of his supervised
release and 21-month sentence raising two issues, whether: (1)
the district court erred by granting an implied continuance in
his first revocation hearing; and (2) the evidence was
sufficient to support his Grade B violations. We affirm.
In his petition for revocation and amended petition, Farris
was charged with Grade B and Grade C violations of his
supervised release. The Grade B violations were not committing
another crime, which Farris violated by failing to register as a
sex offender or failing to provide notice of registration
changes, and by being charged with forgery or uttering, and with
entry of a building other than a dwelling. The Grade C
violations were: failing to secure employment since being
released from prison; failing to truthfully answer all inquiries
and follow instructions of his probation officer by failing to
notify his probation officer within ten days of any change of
address; and failing to submit monthly supervision reports.
Farris argues that the Grade C violations alone were
insufficient to merit revocation of his supervised release.
At the initial revocation proceeding, Farris objected to
hearsay testimony presented by the Government. Farris argues
that the district court granted an implied motion for
continuance by sustaining his objection and allowing the
2
Government to secure the necessary witnesses in a continued
hearing.
At the continued hearing, the Government presented five
witnesses, providing Farris the opportunity of cross-
examination, which was the basis of his hearsay objection in the
previous hearing. Based on the evidence presented, the district
court found Farris guilty of all violations and sentenced him to
21 months of imprisonment. We affirm.
A district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a
continuance and its decision will not be reversed absent abuse
of that discretion. United States v. LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815,
823 (4th Cir. 1990). Moreover, even if such an abuse is found,
a defendant is required to show that the error specifically
prejudiced his case in order to prevail. Our review of the
record reveals no abuse of discretion by the district court in
granting the motion to continue. Thus, this claim is without
merit.
We review a district court’s revocation of supervised
release and its imposition of a sentence after revocation for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,
373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). The
district court need only find a violation of a condition of
supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d
3
829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). Credibility determinations are not
subject to review. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60
(4th Cir. 1989). Our review of the record reveals no abuse of
discretion by the district court and that the evidence was
sufficient to support the court’s decision to revoke supervised
release.
For these reasons, 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4