United States v. Washington, 110512 FED4, 12-4242

Docket Nº:12-4242
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAVANT V. WASHINGTON Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Matthew Collin Joseph, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 05, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAVANT V. WASHINGTON Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-4242

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

November 5, 2012

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: September 20, 2012

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00235-FDW-1)

Matthew Collin Joseph, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lavant V. Washington appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release.[*]On appeal, Washington argues that the Government did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the conditions of his release, and that the district court erred in revoking his supervised release. Although we affirm the revocation of supervised release, we remand for the purpose of correcting a clerical error in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

We review a district court's judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). To revoke supervised release, 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) (2006). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error. United States v. White, 620 F.3d 401, 410 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if this court "on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the district court's account of the evidence is "plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, " this court will not reverse the district court's finding even if it "would have decided the fact differently." United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP