Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05048/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Chandra Inell Warren
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FI~~ 

U it.ad Statn Appea\l TENTH CIRCUIT n Tenth Circu t 

JAN 2 2 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Clerk 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 92-5048 

) (D.C. No . 90-CR-150-B) 

CHANDRA INELL WARREN, ) (N.D. Oklahoma) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App . P. 

34 (f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Chandra Inell Warren appeals from the district 

court order revoking her supervised release after determining that 

she violated conditions of her supervised release. She was then 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-5048 Document: 010110159206 Date Filed: 01/22/1993 Page: 1 
ordered imprisoned for nine months, to be followed by a twentyfour month term of supervised release. 18 U.S . C. § 3583 (e } (3 ) . 

The only issue on appeal is whether the evidence presented on 

the government's petition was sufficient to support the district 

court's finding. We review the district court's decision to 

revoke supervised release under an abuse of discretion standard. 

United States v. Stephenson, 928 F.2d 728, 731-32 (6th Cir. 1991). 

Defendant was originally sentenced on March 11, 1991, to 

imprisonment for six months, followed by three years of supervised 

release, after pleading guilty to two counts of fraudulent use of 

a social security number. During supervised release defendant was 

required to participate in substance abuse screening and counseling under the direction of the United States Probation Office. A 

standard condition of supervised release also includes a prohibition on possession or use of narcotics or other controlled substances. During her period of supervised release, defendant's 

probation officer received evidence that defendant's urine samples 

tested positive for cocaine usage. Based upon that evidence, her 

probation officer filed a petition seeking revocation of her 

supervised release. 

At the hearing on the petition, the government presented 

documentary evidence of eight urine samples collected during 

December 1991 and January 1992 that tested positive for cocaine 

usage. In response, the defendant denied having used cocaine at 

any time during her supervised release and stated the testing procedures were unreliable. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5048 Document: 010110159206 Date Filed: 01/22/1993 Page: 2 
We give due deference to a district court's evaluation of the 

credibility of evidence received during sentencing. United States 

v . Cook, 949 F . 2d 289, 296-97 (10th Cir. 1991). After review of 

the record we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the documented evidence that defendant vielated the tenns of her supervised release. Defendant did not 

chal lenge the accuracy of the urine samples or testing procedures 

with any authoritative evidence. We believe the district court 

properly concluded that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated a condition of her 

supervised release . 18 U.S . C. § 3583(e) (3). The district court 

also correctly considered the factors contained at 18 U.S . C. 

§ 3553(a) (2) in sentencing defendant . 

AFFIRMED . 

-3 -

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-5048 Document: 010110159206 Date Filed: 01/22/1993 Page: 3