US v. Carlos Davila

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:98-cr-00208-TSE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998878178].. [11-5094]

Appeal: 11-5094

Doc: 45

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5094

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS JOSEPH DAVILA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:98-cr-00208-TSE-1)

Submitted:

June 14, 2012

Decided: June 19, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory B. English, THE ENGLISH LAW FIRM, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, A. Marisa Chun, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5094

Doc: 45

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Carlos

Joseph

Davila

appeals

the

revocation

of

his

supervised release, contending that the district court violated
his right of confrontation by limiting his cross-examination of
the arresting officer.

We affirm.

During the supervised release revocation hearing, the
government presented evidence of Davila’s involvement in a sale
of cocaine to a confidential informant.
officer

testified,

defense

counsel

After the arresting

subjected

him

to

cross-

examination, pointing out some inconsistencies in his testimony.
In

his

defense,

arresting

Davila—represented

officer

as

a

witness

by

and

new

counsel—called

subjected

inquiry about inconsistencies in his testimony.
that

Davila

witness

and

questioning.

already
suggested

had

conducted

that

him

to

narrow

further

The court noted

cross-examination

counsel

the

the

focus

of

this

of

his

After a recess, counsel continued to question the

officer concerning inconsistencies.

At no time did Davila state

that he had further questions, nor does he assert on appeal that
further inquiry would have elicited additional evidence.
record

shows

cross-examine

that

Davila

the

officer.

was

afforded
We

ample

conclude

opportunity

that

the

The
to

court’s

directive to Davila’s counsel to prioritize his inquires did not
violate Davila’s right of confrontation.

See Black v. Romano,

471 U.S. 606, 612 (1985) (providing for right to cross-examine
2

Appeal: 11-5094

Doc: 45

adverse

Filed: 06/19/2012

witnesses,

unless

Pg: 3 of 4

good

cause

found

for

not

allowing

confrontation).
In
violated

light

his

supervised

the

finding

substantial

release,

clearly

err

release

terms

by

possessing

States

v.

Copley,

United

by

of

that

the

Davila
and

978

evidence

district

court

violated

his

distributing

F.2d

that

829,

831

Davila
did

supervised

cocaine.
(4th

not

Cir.

See
1992)

(providing for preponderance of the evidence standard of proof
in

revocation

hearings).

The

minor

inconsistencies

in

the

officer’s testimony brought forth during cross-examination were
not

sufficient

to

undermine

the

government’s

evidence.

We

discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s attempts
to sharpen the focus of Davila’s second cross-examination of the
officer so as to move the proceeding along and to require the
inquiries to be relevant.
673,

679

(1986)

See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S.

(providing

that

court

had

wide

latitude

to

control scope and extent of cross-examination); United States v.
Sanchez,

118

F.3d

192,

196-97

(4th

Cir.

1997)

(providing

standard and finding not abuse of discretion when court imposed
reasonable limits on cross-examination).
Davila also challenges the district court’s imposition
of a twenty-month term of supervision following the thirty-twomonth sentence of imprisonment.
of

the

sentence

is

He contends that this portion

illegal.

Because
3

the

district

court

Appeal: 11-5094

Doc: 45

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

corrected the judgment to reflect that the supervised release
term

following

the

revocation

sentence

was

seventeen

months,

this issue is moot.
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4