US v. Eric Nixon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00131-CMC-12 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999280289].. [13-4617]

Appeal: 13-4617

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC NIXON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00131-CMC-12)

Submitted:

January 13, 2014

Decided:

January 21, 2014

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4617

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eric

Nixon

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment

revoking his supervised release and imposing a twenty-four-month
prison term.

Nixon argues that the district court erred by

failing to suppress marijuana seized from his person on December
14, 2012, allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and
further
conduct,

erred

in

namely

distribute it.
We

finding

possession

that
of

he

engaged

marijuana

in

with

new
the

criminal
intent

to

We affirm.
review

a

district

court’s

decision

to

revoke

supervised release for abuse of discretion.

United States v.

Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999).

A district court

need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release
by

a

preponderance

(2012); Johnson

v.

of

the

United

evidence.
States,

529

18

U.S.C.

U.S.

694,

§ 3583(e)(3)
700

(2000).

We review for clear error factual determinations underlying the
conclusion that a violation occurred.

United States v. Miller,

557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Whalen,
82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996).
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Nixon’s supervised release.

Nixon’s claim that the

marijuana seized during the December 14 stop should have been
suppressed fails because the exclusionary rule does not apply in
2

Appeal: 13-4617

Doc: 23

federal

supervised

United States
1999).

Filed: 01/21/2014

v.

Pg: 3 of 3

release

Armstrong,

187

revocation
F.3d

392,

proceedings.

393-95

(4th

Cir.

Further, a preponderance of the evidence supports the

court’s finding that Nixon violated the terms of his supervised
release by engaging in the criminal offense of possession with
intent to distribute marijuana while on release.

S.C. Code Ann.

§ 44-53-370(a)(1) (Supp. 2013); State v. Goldsmith, 392 S.E.2d
787, 788 (S.C. 1990); Matthews v. State, 387 S.E.2d 258, 259
(S.C. 1990).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3