US v. Darrell Digsby

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00304-RJC-CH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999498211].. [14-4036]

Appeal: 14-4036

Doc: 42

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL EUGENE DIGSBY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:04-cr-00304-RJC-CH-1)

Submitted:

December 18, 2014

Decided:

December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne
M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4036

Doc: 42

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Darrell Eugene Digsby was convicted by a jury in 2005
of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to the
statutory maximum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment, followed
by three years of supervised release.
supervised
Digsby’s

release

on

probation

August

officer

13,

filed

Digsby began his term of

2013.
a

In

November

petition

to

2013,

revoke

his

supervised release, alleging two violations, including one for
possession

of

a

controlled

substance

with

intent

to

sell

or

deliver.
At Digsby’s revocation hearing, one of the arresting
officers testified that, during execution of a search warrant at
Digsby’s

residence,

a

bag

containing

fifteen

rocks

of

crack

cocaine was found beneath a rug under the seat where Digsby had
been sitting.

In addition, officers found a bag containing 86

prescription

pills,

including

oxycodone,

OxyContin, near Digsby’s right foot.

hydrocodone,

and

According to the officer,

Digsby admitted that he was selling cocaine to support his own
habit.

Also, incriminating text messages were found in Digsby’s

cell phone.

Based on this evidence, the district court revoked

Digsby’s supervised release.
With

VI,

Digsby’s

Policy Statement range was 33-41 months’ imprisonment.

See U.S.

Sentencing

a

criminal

Guidelines

history

Manual

category

(USSG.)
2

of

§ 7B1.4(a)

(2012).

The

Appeal: 14-4036

Doc: 42

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

court imposed a 24-month term, the statutory maximum.
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012).
This

court

See 18

Digsby timely appealed.

reviews

a

district

court’s

judgment

revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment
for abuse of discretion.
831 (4th Cir. 1992).

United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829,

To revoke supervised release, a district

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

by

a

§ 3583(e)(3).

preponderance

of

the

evidence.

18

U.S.C.

This standard “simply requires the trier of fact

to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than
its nonexistence.”

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631

(4th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

We

find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding

that

Digsby

violated

the

terms

of

his

supervised

release by possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine
and prescription pills.
This

court

will

affirm

a

sentence

imposed

after

revocation of supervised release if it is within the statutory
maximum and not plainly unreasonable.
461

F.3d

433,

439-40

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Crudup,

2006).

A

sentence

upon

revocation is procedurally reasonable if the district court has
considered the policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the
Sentencing Guidelines and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012)

factors,

Crudup,

461

F.3d
3

at

440,

and

has

adequately

Appeal: 14-4036

Doc: 42

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the
sentence

in

sentence.

as

much

detail

when

imposing

the

original

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th

Cir. 2010).

We presume that a sentence within the Chapter Seven

range is reasonable.
(4th

as

Cir.

2013).

United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 642
Applying

these

standards,

we

find

that

Digsby’s sentence is not unreasonable.
Therefore,

we

affirm

the

revocation

supervised release and the sentence imposed.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

of

Digsby’s

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4