US v. Roger King, Jr., No. 11-4793 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4793 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROGER KING, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00032-IMK-8) Submitted: January 10, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger King, Jr. appeals the twenty-four month sentence imposed for his violation of the conditions of supervised release that were imposed on his prior federal drug conviction. We affirm. King s sole argument on appeal is that the district court placed on King the burden of proving that he had not violated the conditions of his supervised release, and that this allocation of the burden of proof constituted reversible error. Because he did not object on these grounds court, our review is for plain error. in the district See United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336, 339 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, King must that identify an error substantial rights. 342 43 (4th committed Cir. plain 2009). Even error, of the seriously public justice reputation is plain and affects his United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, miscarriage error that we will would the the not the judicial district correct otherwise affect[s] of where has unless it result, fairness, court a meaning integrity, proceedings. that or United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). Our review of the record in this case convinces us that any error on the district King s substantial rights. F.3d 235, 240 (4th Cir. court s part did not affect See United States v. Hastings, 134 1998) 2 (noting that the defendant s burden on plain error review is to show that the outcome of the proceedings was actually affected by the error). After all, to revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation of preponderance a of condition the of evidence. supervised See 18 release U.S.C. ยง by a 3583(e)(3) (2006); United States v. Bujak, 347 F.3d 607, 609 (6th Cir. 2003); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). This burden simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the district court expressed that it had no doubt that King had committed at least the most serious violation of the conditions of his supervised release. The record demonstrates that the district court would have reached this conclusion regardless of whether it had tasked King or the Government with the duty to prove its case by a preponderance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument will not aid the 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.
