US v. Thomas Farri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00030-1,2:12-cr-00217-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999997428].. [16-4127]

Appeal: 16-4127

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4127

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS E. FARRIS, a/k/a Thomas Edgar Farris, a/k/a Thomas
Farris,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00030-1; 2:12-cr-00217-1)

Submitted:

October 27, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

January 4, 2017

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard W. Weston, WESTON LAW OFFICE, Huntington, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Carol A. Casto, United States Attorney, Lisa G.
Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4127

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Thomas E. Farris appeals the revocation of his supervised
release and 21-month sentence raising two issues, whether: (1)
the district court erred by granting an implied continuance in
his

first

revocation

hearing;

and

(2)

the

sufficient to support his Grade B violations.

evidence

was

We affirm.

In his petition for revocation and amended petition, Farris
was

charged

with

Grade

supervised release.

B

and

Grade

C

violations

of

his

The Grade B violations were not committing

another crime, which Farris violated by failing to register as a
sex

offender

or

failing

to

provide

notice

of

registration

changes, and by being charged with forgery or uttering, and with
entry

of

a

violations

building
were:

other

failing

than

to

a

secure

dwelling.
employment

The

Grade

since

C

being

released from prison; failing to truthfully answer all inquiries
and follow instructions of his probation officer by failing to
notify his probation officer within ten days of any change of
address;
Farris

and

failing

argues

that

to

submit

the

monthly

Grade

C

supervision

violations

reports.

alone

were

insufficient to merit revocation of his supervised release.
At the initial revocation proceeding, Farris objected to
hearsay testimony presented by the Government.
that

the

continuance

district
by

court

sustaining

granted
his
2

an

implied

objection

and

Farris argues
motion

for

allowing

the

Appeal: 16-4127

Doc: 33

Government

to

Filed: 01/04/2017

secure

the

Pg: 3 of 4

necessary

witnesses

in

a

continued

hearing.
At

the

hearing,

the

providing

witnesses,

continued

Farris

Government

the

presented

opportunity

of

five

cross-

examination, which was the basis of his hearsay objection in the
previous hearing.

Based on the evidence presented, the district

court found Farris guilty of all violations and sentenced him to
21 months of imprisonment.

We affirm.

A district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a
continuance and its decision will not be reversed absent abuse
of that discretion.

United States v. LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815,

823 (4th Cir. 1990).

Moreover, even if such an abuse is found,

a

defendant

is

required

to

show

that

the

prejudiced his case in order to prevail.

error

specifically

Our review of the

record reveals no abuse of discretion by the district court in
granting the motion to continue.

Thus, this claim is without

merit.
We

review

a

district

court’s

revocation

of

supervised

release and its imposition of a sentence after revocation for
abuse of discretion.
373

(4th

Cir.),

cert.

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,
denied,

136

S.

Ct.

494

(2015).

The

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

release

by

a

preponderance

of

the

evidence.

See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d
3

Appeal: 16-4127

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/04/2017

829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).
subject to review.
(4th Cir. 1989).
discretion

by

the

Pg: 4 of 4

Credibility determinations are not

United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60
Our review of the record reveals no abuse of
district

court

and

that

the

evidence

was

sufficient to support the court’s decision to revoke supervised
release.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

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

4