US v. Jason Dunford, No. 10-4146 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4146 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASON MICHAEL DUNFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:05-cr-00003-gec-6) Submitted: July 13, 2010 Decided: July 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill, Allegra M.C. Black, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Ashley B. Neese, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jason Dunford appeals the district court s amended judgment finding he violated the terms of supervised release and revoking supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months imprisonment. Dunford claims the evidence was insufficient to find that he violated the terms of supervised release. We affirm. We review a district court s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. Cir. 1992). United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th To revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. id. This burden simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence nonexistence. Cir. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006); 2010) challenging a fact is more probable than its United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th (internal the of quotation sufficiency marks of the omitted). evidence A faces defendant 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 in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 2 We hold there was more than sufficient evidence to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Dunford violated the terms of supervised release because he was found in possession of child pornography. Accordingly, judgment. legal before affirm the district court s amended We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the we court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.