United States v. Milton , 166 F. App'x 756 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30595
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCUS A. MILTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:95-CR-50072-3
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcus A. Milton appeals from the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 21 months
of imprisonment. Milton contends that the evidence was
insufficient to support a finding that he committed a grade A
violation by a preponderance of the evidence. He argues that the
Government failed to prove either possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine or possession of a firearm. According
to Milton, the Government failed to produce evidence that the
substance he possessed was in fact crack cocaine or that he
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-30595
-2-
possessed that substance with intent to distribute. He argues
that the Government failed to show that he possessed any
substance with the intent to distribute, and that the Government
showed at most that he possessed a white, rock-like substance for
personal use, which he argues is a grade B violation. He further
argues that the Government failed to prove that he possessed the
firearm found in the car in which he was a passenger.
The evidence was sufficient to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that Milton possessed with intent to distribute
crack cocaine, a grade A violation of his supervised release.
See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 2005);
United States v. Majors, 328 F.3d 791, 796 (5th Cir. 2003). The
district court therefore was required to revoke Milton’s
supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). Milton does not
challenge the term of imprisonment he received upon revocation of
his supervised release and therefore has abandoned any such
challenge. See United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365, 371 (5th
Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.