Filed: Dec. 29, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4548 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERCK GILLIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-378) Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4548 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERCK GILLIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-378) Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4548
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DERCK GILLIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-90-378)
Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Avner Shapiro, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Derck Gillis appeals from the revocation of his
supervised release. His sole issue on appeal is that there was
insufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that
he possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute it. We do not
find that the district court abused its discretion by finding that
Gillis violated his supervised release in this manner. United
States v. Copley,
978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). This court
does not review credibility determinations on appeal. United
States v. Burgos,
94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996). Accordingly,
we affirm Gillis’ conviction. 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
- 2 -