US v. Craig Singleton, No. 13-4291 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRAIG WAYNE SINGLETON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00089-IMK-3) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: December 9, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In 2007, Craig Wayne Singleton pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base within 1000 feet of a protected location, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860 (2012). court ultimately imposed a sentence of The district forty-one months imprisonment, followed by six years of supervised release. 2010, Singleton was released from incarceration. In In March 2013, his probation officer filed a petition for his arrest, alleging five violations of the conditions of supervised release. Following a hearing, the district court found that Singleton had violated all five conditions. The court revoked release and imposed a five-month sentence of imprisonment, followed by a new sixty-seven month term of supervised release. Singleton now appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support revocation. We affirm. On appeal, Singleton contends that the evidence was insufficient intentional. to establish He argues that that his the alleged district misconduct court was failed to consider the lack of evidence of his intent and instead took a strict liability approach to determining if he committed the charged violations. Finally, he asserts that he could not have committed two of the violations failing to obey his probation officer s orders and failing 2 to attend substance abuse treatment because the probation officer never ordered Singleton to begin or complete the treatment by a certain date. On October 4, 2013, while this appeal was pending, Singleton was released from incarceration and began serving his new term of supervised release. We may address sua sponte whether an issue on appeal presents a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes to jurisdiction of the courts. F.3d 191, omitted). 197 (4th the of the Article III Friedman s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 Cir. 2002) Singleton Because heart has (internal already quotation served his marks term of imprisonment, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the district court s decision to impose an active prison sentence, and any challenge to that sentence is therefore moot. See United 2008). States But supervised v. Hardy, because release, 545 Singleton we retain F.3d is 280, 283-84 serving a jurisdiction (4th new to Cir. term review of the district court s revocation decision, the issue raised in this appeal. We review a district court s decision supervised release for abuse of discretion. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). the district release by court a must find preponderance § 3583(e)(3) (2012). a of violation the to revoke United States v. To revoke release, of a evidence. condition 18 of U.S.C. We review for clear error factual findings 3 underlying the 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 Singleton committed at least four charged violations of the conditions of supervised release. * Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, United States v. Green, probation 599 officer s F.3d 360, testimony 367 (4th established Cir. each 2010), of the these offenses, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. Further, the record reveals no reason to conclude that the district court s sentencing determination might have been different had it found that Singleton had committed only four violations of the conditions of his supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * We need not resolve whether sufficient evidence supported the district court s finding that Singleton knowingly failed to appear for a scheduled drug test, as we are persuaded that sufficient evidence sustains the other four charged violations. 4