US v. Troy Moore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:02-cr-10059-JPJ-PMS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999817632]. [16-4064]

Appeal: 16-4064

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TROY ALLEN MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-10059-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted:

May 5, 2016

Decided:

May 10, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney,
Kevin L. Jayne, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4064

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In

2003,

a

federal

jury

convicted

Troy

Allen

Moore

several counts related to firearm and drug possession.

of

Moore

was sentenced to 90 months of imprisonment, followed by 5 years
of supervised release.
Moore’s

supervised

The district court subsequently revoked

release

and

sentenced

him

to

30

days

imprisonment, followed by 2 years of supervised release.

of

After

Moore’s release from incarceration, the court again found that
Moore

had

violated

the

terms

of

his

supervised

release

and

imposed a sentence of six months of imprisonment, followed by
two years of supervised release.

Moore now appeals.

For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.
Moore first argues on appeal that the district court erred
in

admitting

substances
pursuant
Moore

to

a

he

laboratory

possessed

Fed.

offered

R.

the

report

without

Crim.
report

P.

of

the

analysis

conducting

a

balancing

32.1(b)(1)(C).

into

evidence.

of

Here,
“Under

the
test

however,
ordinary

circumstances, this court will not consider alleged errors that
were invited by the appellant.”
F.3d

756,

772

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Hickman, 626

2010).

Under

the

invited

error

doctrine, “a court can not be asked by counsel to take a step in
a case and later be convicted of error, because it has complied
with such request.”

United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 75

(4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2

We conclude

Appeal: 16-4064

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/10/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

that Moore invited any error in the district court’s admission
of the report as part of his trial strategy and we therefore
decline to consider this assignment of error on appeal.

See

United States v. Lespier, 725 F.3d 437, 451 (4th Cir. 2013)
(only recognized exception to the invited error doctrine where
noticing error would be necessary to preserve the integrity of
the judicial process or prevent a miscarriage of justice; no
such circumstances exist where defendant invited error as part
of sound trial strategy).
Moore also argues that the district court erred in finding
that he was guilty of driving under the influence.

We review a

district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse
of

discretion,

and

review

the

court’s

underlying the revocation for clear error.

factual

findings

United States v.

Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
494 (2015).

The district court need only find a supervised

release violation by a preponderance of the evidence; “[t]his
standard requires only that the existence of a fact be more
probable than its nonexistence.”
marks

omitted).

We

have

Id. at 374 (internal quotation

thoroughly

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Moore’s supervised release.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
3

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-4064

Doc: 24

contentions

are

Filed: 05/10/2016

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4