US v. Darrell Digsby, No. 14-4036 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL EUGENE DIGSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:04-cr-00304-RJC-CH-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell Eugene Digsby was convicted by a jury in 2005 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. supervised Digsby’s release on probation August officer 13, filed Digsby began his term of 2013. a In November petition to 2013, revoke his supervised release, alleging two violations, including one for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver. At Digsby’s revocation hearing, one of the arresting officers testified that, during execution of a search warrant at Digsby’s residence, a bag containing fifteen rocks of crack cocaine was found beneath a rug under the seat where Digsby had been sitting. In addition, officers found a bag containing 86 prescription pills, including oxycodone, OxyContin, near Digsby’s right foot. hydrocodone, and According to the officer, Digsby admitted that he was selling cocaine to support his own habit. Also, incriminating text messages were found in Digsby’s cell phone. Based on this evidence, the district court revoked Digsby’s supervised release. With VI, Digsby’s Policy Statement range was 33-41 months’ imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing a criminal Guidelines history Manual category (USSG.) 2 of § 7B1.4(a) (2012). The court imposed a 24-month term, the statutory maximum. U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). This court See 18 Digsby timely appealed. reviews a district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. 831 (4th Cir. 1992). United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, To revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a § 3583(e)(3). preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. This standard “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) (citation and internal quotations omitted). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Digsby violated the terms of his supervised release by possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine and prescription pills. This court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. United States v. Crudup, 2006). A sentence upon revocation is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d 3 at 440, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in sentence. as much detail when imposing the original United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We presume that a sentence within the Chapter Seven range is reasonable. (4th as Cir. 2013). United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 642 Applying these standards, we find that Digsby’s sentence is not unreasonable. Therefore, we affirm the revocation supervised release and the sentence imposed. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials of Digsby’s We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
