US v. Harvey Hood, Jr., No. 15-4228 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4228 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HARVEY HOOD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00163-1) Submitted: September 15, 2015 Decided: October 2, 2015 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christian M. Capece, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Research & Writing Specialist, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Eric P. Bacaj, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In 2009, Harvey Hood, Jr., was convicted of possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2012), and was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment, followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. to be The district court found that, after Hood’s release from imprisonment, he violated the terms of his supervised release by committing the state crime of robbery and using controlled substances. The district court revoked Hood’s supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment. district court committed the abused robbery factual findings. * its On appeal, Hood argues that the discretion offense by in making finding clearly that he erroneous We affirm. To revoke supervised release, a district court need only find a violation of a condition of release by a preponderance of the evidence. district 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). court’s ultimate decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion.” Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). factual findings are reviewed for clear error. * “We review a a defendant’s United States v. A district court’s Id. Hood admitted to the controlled substances violation and does not contest this violation on appeal. 2 “A factual finding is clearly erroneous when we are ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). “Witness credibility is quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on appeal.” United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Bolden, 596 F.3d 976, 982 quotation marks omitted). (8th. Cir. 2010)) (internal We may, however, find clear error where “[d]ocuments or objective evidence . . . contradict the witness’ story; inconsistent or or the story implausible on factfinder would not credit it.” itself its [is] face so internally a reasonable that Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not clearly err in relying on the testimony of the victim to establish that Hood committed the state offense of robbery, and in so doing, finding that Hood violated a term of his supervised release. While the victim gave inconsistent statements to the police, they were not so inconsistent as to render the unreasonable. district The court’s pictures reliance of the on victim’s consistent with her account of the attack. her testimony injuries are Additionally, while the victim did not inform the police she was planning on selling 3 Hood heroin before the robbery, she did admit to using heroin, thus subjecting her to possible punitive sanctions based on her report to the police. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Hood’s supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order revoking supervised release. 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 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.
