Filed: Dec. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-30301 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DEMARCUS JUNE, also known as June Bug, also known as Antonio, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-50079-6 - December 23, 2002 Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Demarcus June appeals the district court’s judgment that revoked his supervised relea
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-30301 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DEMARCUS JUNE, also known as June Bug, also known as Antonio, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-50079-6 - December 23, 2002 Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Demarcus June appeals the district court’s judgment that revoked his supervised releas..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30301
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEMARCUS JUNE, also known as June Bug,
also known as Antonio,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-50079-6
--------------------
December 23, 2002
Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Demarcus June appeals the district court’s judgment that
revoked his supervised release and imposed a 48-month sentence.
June entered a guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms and more of a
mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine and fifty grams
and more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine
base.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-30301
-2-
June contends that the evidence was insufficient to show
that he possessed a firearm, and he argues that the imposition of
the maximum sentence was error. He contends that the district
court did not provide a written statement of the evidence relied
upon and the reasons for the revocation. He asserts that the
district court ignored an admission that would have absolved June
and relied on hearsay evidence admitted over his objection.
We review a decision to revoke supervised release for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. McCormick,
54 F.3d 214, 219
(5th Cir. 1995). June’s challenge to the revocation is without
merit. The district court was required to revoke June’s supervised
release because he admitted that he tested positively for use of a
controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1); United States v.
Kindred,
918 F.2d 485, 487 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1990). June’s 48-month
sentence was within the proper range. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(1),
3583(b)(1), 3583(e)(3); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
The evidence sufficiently established that June possessed
a firearm, and June’s admission overwhelmingly established that he
violated the conditions of supervised release. United States v.
Alaniz-Alaniz,
38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994). The admission of
hearsay was harmless, and the district court’s judgment includes
the implicit finding that the hearsay was reliable.
McCormick, 54
F.3d at 220-21 & n.15. The lack of a written statement of the
evidence relied upon is harmless.
Id. at 220. The district court
based its decision on a credibility determination to which we
No. 02-30301
-3-
accord deference.
Id. at 219. The district court’s decision to
revoke June’s supervised release was not an abuse of discretion.
McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.