US v. Frederick Farrington, No. 10-4090 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4090 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDERICK WILLIAM FARRINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00127-JAB-1) Submitted: November 5, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit November 16, 2010 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frederick court s order William revoking sentencing him Farrington s sole Farrington his to term of twenty-four argument on appeal appeals the supervised months is that district release and imprisonment. the Government failed to satisfy its burden of producing competent evidence to establish that the substance seized from his person was in fact heroin. Farrington asserts that the field test administered by the arresting officer, which confirmed that the seized substance was a controlled substance, is unreliable and insufficient to support the Government s burden. This court reviews a district court s order imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or when its exercise of discretion premise. is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). In a revocation proceeding, findings of fact are made under a preponderance-of-the-evidence, rather than reasonable-doubt, standard, the traditional rules of evidence are inapplicable, and the full panoply of constitutional protections afforded a criminal defendant is not available. United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation 2 marks and citations omitted). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, this court views the evidence Government. in the light most favorable to the United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court correctly concluded that Farrington committed the alleged violations, particularly the violation of the prohibition on committing any additional crimes, and properly revoked district his supervised court s release. judgment. * We Accordingly, dispense with we affirm oral the 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 * Because Farrington does not assert any challenge pertaining to the revocation sentence, we have not reviewed that issue. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
