US v. Jeremy Tucker
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:08-cr-00666-CMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999480704].. [14-4284]
Appeal: 14-4284
Doc: 25
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4284
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMY VASHON TUCKER, a/k/a Nicholas Wilson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00666-CMC-1)
Submitted:
November 20, 2014
Decided:
November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenville,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4284
Doc: 25
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy
Vashon
Tucker
appeals
the
district
court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
twenty-four months in prison, which was at the top of Tucker’s
advisory policy statement range.
Tucker’s attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning
whether
the
district
court
erred
by
revoking
Tucker’s supervised release based on criminal conduct for which
Tucker had not been convicted.
Although advised of his right to
do so, Tucker has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
The
Government
the
has
declined
to
file
a
response
brief.
For
reasons that follow, we affirm.
We
review
a
district
court’s
judgment
revoking
supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse
of discretion.
Cir. 1999).
United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th
To revoke supervised release, a district court need
only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a
preponderance of the evidence.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012);
United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).
The
district
court
found
that
Tucker
violated
the
terms of his supervised release by committing another crime;
namely,
assaulting
Specifically,
on
a
police
February
1,
officer
2014,
2
and
Tucker
causing
was
injury.
arrested
and
Appeal: 14-4284
Doc: 25
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 3 of 4
charged with violating S.C. Code Ann. § 16-9-320(B) (2003).
To
satisfy its burden of proof at the revocation proceeding, the
Government presented evidence that, while serving his supervised
release term, Tucker assaulted an officer of the Spartanburg
County Sheriff’s Office and injured him.
Tucker’s
lone
appellate
contention
is
that
the
district court should not have relied on this conduct to revoke
his supervised release because he had not yet been convicted in
state court.
But whether Tucker is ultimately convicted of the
state assault charge simply is of no matter.
The district court
may find that the defendant has violated a condition of his
supervised
release
based
on
its
own
finding
of
new
criminal
conduct, even if the defendant is acquitted on criminal charges
arising from the same conduct or if the charges against him are
dropped.
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines § 7B1.1,
p.s.,
cmt.
n.1
(2008); see United States v. Jolibois, 294 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th
Cir. 2002) (“A violation of supervised release is determined on
the basis of the defendant’s conduct; it may be found whether
[defendant] was ever indicted or convicted of any particular
offense.”).
evidence
Accordingly, we agree that a preponderance of the
showed
supervised
that
release
Tucker
and
find
had
committed
a
no
abuse
discretion
of
crime
while
in
on
the
district court’s decision to revoke Tucker’s supervised release.
3
Appeal: 14-4284
Doc: 25
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 4 of 4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore
affirm
the
judgment
revoking
Tucker’s
We
supervised
release and imposing a twenty-four-month term of imprisonment.
This court requires that counsel inform Tucker, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Tucker requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Tucker.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?