Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Alexander WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Marvin Wright appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of 60 months’ imprisonment. Wright raises two arguments on appeal: The government erroneously withheld certain evidence in violation of Wright's due process rights, and insufficient evidence supported the district court's conclusion that Wright possessed drugs. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Supervised release revocation hearings are not “criminal prosecutions” under the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Ward, 770 F.3d 1090, 1097 (4th Cir. 2014). “[T]hus, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to [supervised release] revocations.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Here, Wright was only entitled to the “minimum requirements of due process” and the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2). See id. at 488–89, 92 S.Ct. 2593; Ward, 770 F.3d at 1098. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court's discovery orders provided for sufficient due process and, to the extent Wright identified evidence that the district court declined to provide, the court did not err in denying Wright's requests.
Turning to Wright's sufficiency argument, we review the district court's revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion and its factual determinations underlying the conclusion that a violation occurred for clear error. United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d 185, 190 (4th Cir. 2019). A district court need only find a supervised release violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence adduced at the revocation hearing from which the district court could conclude that Wright possessed the drugs at issue.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral arguments because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-4810
Decided: December 22, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)