US v. Jamar Woody, No. 14-4365 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4365 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAR BERNARD WOODY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:05-cr-00110-GEC-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Assistant Federal Appellant. Timothy Bassford, Assistant for Appellee. Federal Public Defender, Fay F. Spence, Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, R. Andrew United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamar Bernard upon Woody appeals sentence imposed revocation of release. the his twenty-seven-month term of supervised Finding no error, we affirm. Woody first contends that the district court erred by finding that he possessed a controlled substance without the admission of a lab report or the testimony of a chemist, and without affording chemist. him the no to cross-examine the However, Woody admitted that the substance was his and that it was cocaine base. was opportunity need uncontested for In light of Woody’s admission, there testimony fact. * Rather, or in cross-examination view of Woody’s as to this admission, counsel’s statements, and evidence of the positive field test, the district court appropriately, and without objection, concluded that Woody violated the terms of his supervision by possessing crack cocaine. Woody sentence. also challenges the reasonableness of the In determining the sentence to impose upon revocation * Woody’s reliance on United States v. Ferguson, 752 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2014) and United States v. Doswell, 670 F.3d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 2012) for the proposition that a laboratory certificate of analysis is insufficient to prove the nature of a substance unless the lab chemist is available to testify and is available for cross-examination is misplaced. In contrast to Woody’s case, the defendants in those cases did not admit to the nature of the substance. 2 of Woody’s supervised release, the district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the statutory requirements, and the relevant factors applicable to revocation §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2012). sentences under 18 U.S.C. The court also considered Woody’s request for a sentence at the low end of the range and the government’s argument for a sentence at the high end. Woody’s numerous release from violations prison and and his the short violations, time the within the prescribed unreasonable. statutory range between court revocation sentence of twenty-seven months. Noting his imposed a This sentence is and is not plainly See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2006). We dispense therefore with contentions are oral affirm argument adequately the revocation because presented in the the judgment. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3