US v. Dallas Harris, No. 13-4023 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DALLAS MCKOY HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00202-BO-1) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 8, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dallas McKoy Harris pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base. In January 2003, the district court sentenced Harris to 144 months imprisonment, to be followed by 60 months of supervised release. This sentence was subsequently reduced to 120 months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). In March 2011, Harris was released from incarceration. In June 2012, the probation officer moved for revocation of Harris supervised release, alleging that Harris committed four violations of his supervised release. Harris admitted to the Grade C violations alleged, but disputed the charged Grade A violation of trafficking in cocaine base. After a hearing, the district court found that Harris committed all four charged violations. The court revoked supervised release and imposed a thirty-month sentence of imprisonment. Harris appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he violated trafficking in cocaine base. We review a his supervised district court s decision Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). district release by court a must by Finding no clear error, we affirm. supervised release for abuse of discretion. the release find preponderance a of 2 violation the to revoke United States v. To revoke release, of a evidence. condition 18 of U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). underlying the We review for clear error factual findings conclusion that supervised release occurred. a violation of the terms of See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Harris violated the conditions of supervised release by trafficking in cocaine. The government presented evidence that Harris was driving a vehicle from which 79 grams of crack cocaine was thrown. A Raleigh police officer stopped the vehicle and detained Harris and his two passengers. One passenger was found in possession of 27 grams of cocaine and a sum of money. Cocaine residue was found on a black tray under the front passenger seat. Harris denied knowing that there was cocaine in the vehicle and denied having thrown from the truck. seen the 79 grams of crack being Harris was charged in state court with trafficking cocaine by possession by vehicle and conspiracy to traffic cocaine. He pled guilty to misdemeanor maintaining a vehicle for the storage of a controlled substance. Based on this evidence, the district court found it more likely than not that Harris was involved in the trafficking of crack cocaine. The North Carolina offense of trafficking of cocaine requires proof that the defendant was in possession of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(h)(3). 28 grams or more of cocaine. 3 Possession Burgos, can 94 be F.3d actual 849, or 873 constructive. (4th Cir. United 1996). States v. Constructive possession can be shown by evidence of dominion and control over the drugs themselves or over the premises or vehicle in which the contraband is found. United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106, 107 (4th Cir. 1992). Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, see United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010), the evidence established each of the elements of trafficking. The amount of cocaine base exceeded 28 grams, and Harris pled guilty in state court to maintaining a vehicle for the storage of a controlled substances, thus establishing his knowledge of the presence of the drugs. 756, 759 (N.C. App. 2013). See State v. Simpson, 748 S.E.2d This evidence, along with the fact that Harris was driving the vehicle in which crack cocaine was found and from which the crack cocaine was thrown, supports the district court s finding that it was more likely than not that Harris more knowingly than 28 possessed either grams of crack actually cocaine, and or constructively thus violated the conditions of his supervised release by trafficking. Accordingly, we find no clear error in the district court s determination the Harris committed the Grade A violation of his supervised release. See United States v. White, 620 F.3d 401, 410 (4th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Stevenson, 4 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005) (providing that court of appeals will not reverse factual finding if district court s view of the evidence is plausible in light of the totality of the evidence, even if the appeals court would have resolved the facts differently). We therefore affirm the revocation judgment and the 30-month sentence. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
