Filed: Aug. 24, 2021
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2021
Case: 21-60250 Document: 00515991901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 24, 2021
No. 21-60250 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Mackee Donell Jefferson,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:18-CR-205-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges
Per Curiam:*
Mackee Donell Jefferson began a term of supervised release on August
6, 2020. On January 22, 2021, the probation officer filed a petition for an
arrest warrant, asserting that Jefferson had violated the terms of his
supervised release by unlawfully using a controlled substance and by
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60250 Document: 00515991901 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
No. 21-60250
committing another federal, state, or local crime. The petition stemmed
from Jefferson’s arrest on December 20, 2020, for driving under the
influence, possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and
possessing a felony amount of marijuana. Following a revocation hearing, the
district court found that Jefferson had committed all the violations alleged,
revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him within the advisory range
to 24 months of imprisonment and 12 months of supervised release.
On appeal, Jefferson does not challenge the revocation of his
supervised release, but only the length of his revocation sentence. He argues
that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s finding that
he committed new crimes. He does not dispute that he unlawfully used a
controlled substance.
A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds
by a preponderance of the evidence that he has violated a condition of his
release. See United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 332 (5th Cir. 2010); 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). All that is required “is enough evidence to satisfy the
district judge that the conduct of the petitioner has not met the conditions”
of supervised release. United States v. McCormick,
54 F.3d 214, 219 n.3 (5th
Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district
court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo, and its
factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Winding,
817
F.3d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 2016).
In considering Jefferson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
this court “must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be
drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the government.”
United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation
omitted). The district court is “free to choose among reasonable
constructions of the evidence.”
Id. (citation omitted). The evidence is
2
Case: 21-60250 Document: 00515991901 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
No. 21-60250
sufficient if a reasonable trier of fact could reach the conclusion being
challenged. Id.
In concluding that Jefferson violated his supervised release by
committing new crimes, the district court expressly credited the testimony
of Ridgeland, Mississippi Police Officer Michael Hutton, who investigated
the incident, administered field sobriety tests, discovered suspected drugs
and items indicative of distribution in Jefferson’s pocket and vehicle, and
later confirmed through field testing that those substances were marijuana,
ecstasy, and methamphetamine. The evidence also includes Jefferson’s
admission to his probation officer after his arrest that officers had recovered
marijuana and ecstasy from his vehicle the night before.
Based on the foregoing, the district court did not err in concluding that
the evidence established by a preponderance that Jefferson violated the terms
of his supervised release by driving under the influence, possessing a
controlled substance with intent to distribute, and possessing a felony
amount of marijuana. See Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d at 792. Jefferson’s
arguments to the contrary regarding the chain of custody and hearsay do not
alter this conclusion.
AFFIRMED.
3
