US v. Phillip Burton, No. 14-4152 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4152 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. PHILLIP MICHAEL THOMAS BURTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00411-MOC-1) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Seth Neyhart, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas A. O Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Michael Thomas Burton pled guilty to conspiracy to import MDMA or Ecstasy and importation of MDMA or Ecstasy. In April 2009, the district court sentenced Burton to forty-two months months of imprisonment, supervised to In release. released from incarceration. be followed December by 2011, thirty-six Burton was In January 2014, Burton was before the district court on a supervised release violation. The court found that Burton committed a Level A violation based on an incident that involved his arrest for possession of 108 grams of marijuana. The court revoked his supervised release and imposed a twenty-one-month sentence. Burton s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 686 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the court clearly erred in determining that Burton committed the Grade A violation and whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. We review Finding no clear error, we affirm. 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 the find preponderance § 3583(e)(3) (2012). underlying must a violation of the to revoke United States v. To revoke release, of a condition evidence. 18 of U.S.C. We review for clear error factual findings conclusion that 2 a violation of the terms of supervised release occurred. 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 Burton violated the conditions of supervised release by possessing marijuana. The Government presented evidence that police officers found a mason jar full of marijuana in the car in which Burton was driving and that a strong aroma of marijuana came from the car and Burton s person. Based on this and other evidence, the district court found it more likely Possession Burgos, than can 94 not be F.3d that actual 849, or 873 Burton possessed constructive. (4th Cir. the marijuana. 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), we find no clear error in the district court s determination that Burton 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, 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 3 is plausible in light of the totality of the evidence, even if the appeals court would have resolved the facts differently). Next, court correctly district Burton category and whether specifically the questions calculated court his criminal sufficiently reasons for the sentence imposed. whether the history articulated the He also generally questions the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The district court has broad discretion in determining a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). United In examining a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, we take[] a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines sentences. United States v. Moulden, 478 (internal F.3d 652, omitted). We 656 (4th will Cir. affirm a 2007) revocation quotation sentence that marks falls within the statutory maximum, unless we find the sentence to be plainly unreasonable. 437 (4th Cir. 2006). must first using the determine same sentences. procedurally United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, In reviewing a revocation sentence, we whether general Id. at 438. or the analysis sentence employed is to unreasonable, review original Only if we find a sentence to be substantively unreasonable whether the sentence is plainly so. 4 will Id. at 439. we determine A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered both the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. The district court also must provide an explanation of its chosen sentence, although this explanation need not be as detailed or specific as is required for an original sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court was not plainly unreasonable. We therefore affirm the revocation judgment and the twenty-one-month sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not 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.
