United States v. Williams, 11036.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 11036.,11036. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dwight WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
W. E. McElwee and John E. Hall, North Wilkesboro, N. C. (McElwee & Hall, North Wilkesboro, N. C., on brief), for appellant.
Wm. Medford, U. S. Atty. (Joseph R. Cruciani, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
The district court's order revoking Dwight Williams' probation is attacked principally on the ground thtat evidentiary support was lacking.
Revocation of probation lies within the discretion of the sentencing court and the only question before us is whether the district court abused its discretion. United States v. Ball, 358 F.2d 367 (4 Cir. 1966); United States v. Taylor, 321 F.2d 339 (4 Cir. 1963). Proof sufficient to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge's discretionary order revoking probation. United States v. Ball, supra; Manning v. United States, 161 F.2d 827 (5 Cir. 1947). All that is required is that the evidence and facts be such as "to reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of the probation." Yates v. United States, 308 F.2d 737 (10 Cir. 1962).
Appellant's counsel undertook to assign and argue orally before us other objections to the revocation order but we decline to consider them since they were not argued in the briefs and this court's permission to argue them orally was not given. See Rule 10, section 8, Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Villavicencio
...(holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived); United States v. Williams, 378 F.2d 665, 666 (4th Cir. 1967) (per curiam) (holding issues argued orally but not addressed in brief were waived); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231......
-
Cades v. H & R Block, Inc.
...on this claim. V We need not consider Cades's state law claims because he did not argue them in his briefs. See United States v. Williams, 378 F.2d 665, 666 (4th Cir.1967). ...
-
Virginians for Dulles v. Volpe
...Corp. v. F.T.C., 454 F.2d 1083, 1093 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. White, 454 F.2d 435, 439 (7th Cir. 1971); United States v. Williams, 378 F.2d 665, 666 (4th Cir. 1967); 9 Moore, Federal Practice P 228.02 (2.-1) at 3755 (2d ed. The district court's ruling that VFD could not assert its ......
-
Keeton v. Clarke, Civil Action No. 3:19CV841
...to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge's discretionary order revoking probation." United States v. Williams, 378 F.2d 665, 666 (4th Cir. 1967). As discussed above, ample proof existed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Keeton committed the crime of rape whi......
-
Sentencing
...satisfied” that probationer violated probation condition); U.S. v. Gordon, 961 F.2d 426, 429 (3d Cir. 1992) (same); U.S. v. Williams, 378 F.2d 665, 666 (4th Cir. 1967) (same); U.S. v. Jang, 574 F.3d 263, 265-66 (5th Cir. 2009) (revocation proper when court found violation based on preponde......