US v. David White, No. 10-5168 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5168 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID C. WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:00-cr-00155-1) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Assistant Counsel, Goodwin, Assistant Appellee. Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Lex A. Coleman, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth II, United States Attorney, William B. King, II, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David C. White appeals the district court s revocation of his term of supervised release. On appeal, White argues that the in district possessed court clearly ammunition discretion in found revoking his erred inside term finding his of that home, and supervised he jointly abused release. its We affirm. We review the district court's decision to revoke a defendant's supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). The district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. ยง 3583(e)(3) (2006). We review factual determinations informing the a conclusion that violation occurred for clear error. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district jointly court neither possessed the clearly erred ammunition in found finding inside his that White home, nor abused its discretion in revoking White s supervised release. Accordingly, dispense we with affirm oral the argument district because court s the judgment. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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.
