The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
05-4423•United States of America v. Benjamin J. Jones
05-4423Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 17, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4423
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BENJAMIN J. JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-92-30)
Submitted: November 4, 2005 Decided: November 17, 2005
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Jennifer Coble, COBLE & SNOW, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney,
Keith M. Cave, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin J. Jones appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release on the basis that he committed
attempted murder and was a felon in possession of a firearm during
his term of supervised release. This court reviews a district
court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
A violation of a condition of supervised release must be proved by
a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)
(2000); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000). A
state conviction for the underlying conduct is not required, and
the district court’s finding of witness credibility in the
revocation hearing is not reviewable. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1, comment. (n.1) (2002); United States v.
Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
revoking Jones’s supervised release. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.