United States of America v. WILLIAM MOORE, JR., a/k/a Junior Moore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4244
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM MOORE, JR., a/k/a Junior Moore,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:96-cr-00047-FDW-1)
Submitted: February 17, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Ross H. Richardson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Mark
Odulio, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William Moore, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-
seven months in prison. We affirm.
In a Petition for Warrant for Offender under
Supervision, Moore’s probation officer alleged that Moore had
violated five terms of his release. Violation (2) stated:
NEW LAW VIOLATION. . . The defendant has violated the
condition of supervision that states, “The defendant
shall not commit another federal, state, or local
crime,” in that, on 8-15-08, in Cleveland County, NC,
the defendant was charged with failing to wear a seat
belt, possession of drug paraphernalia, felony
possession [of a] Sch. VI controlled substance and
possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana.
The charges of felony possession of Sch. VI [sic] and
possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana
remain pending in Cleveland County, NC. (Grade A
violation).
At Moore’s revocation hearing, there was testimony
that North Carolina State Trooper Saucier initiated a traffic
stop after he observed Moore operating a vehicle while not
wearing a seat belt. When Saucier approached the vehicle, he
smelled unburnt marijuana. He then called for backup. The
backup officer, Trooper Horton, approached the passenger side of
the vehicle to speak to Moore’s passenger, Marcus Sadler.
Sadler reached down to the floorboard and pulled out a holstered
gun, which he attempted to remove from the holster. Horton
grabbed the gun, and Moore and Sadler were arrested. During a

-- 2 of 4 --

3
search of the vehicle, officers found digital scales and several
baggies containing marijuana in the glove compartment, a box
containing over 300 grams of marijuana on the rear seat of the
vehicle, and over $2600 in cash on Sadler’s person.
The district court found that Moore had committed
violation (2). The court stated that a preponderance of the
evidence established that Moore “was involved with one or more
to possess with intent to distribute and sell and deliver
marijuana, which is a state law violation.” In particular, the
court noted that Moore had a history of dealing drugs. He was
driving a vehicle from which emanated a strong smell of unburnt
marijuana. As an admitted marijuana user, Moore would have
recognized the drug’s smell. The court concluded that Moore
“put[] himself in the position of facilitating the distribution
of marijuana” for Sadler.
Moore contends on appeal that the district court
violated his due process rights and Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.1(b)(1)(A) because, rather than finding that he had violated
state law as charged in the Petition, the court found that he
instead had committed a violation of the federal drug conspiracy
laws. While there was some discussion of federal conspiracy law
at the revocation hearing, our review of the transcript of the
hearing reveals that the district court did not conclude that
Moore had violated federal, rather than state law. The court

-- 3 of 4 --

4
determined instead that evidence presented at the hearing
established the state law violation.
We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --