Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02468/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02468-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory A. Fields
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2468

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Gregory A. Fields, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2008

Filed: October 9, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 revoked Gregory Fields’s supervised release and sentenced

him to 8 months in prison after finding that Fields had used a controlled substance in

violation of his release conditions. The court’s finding was based on test results from

a sweat patch showing the presence of cocaine and/or cocaine metabolite. On appeal,

Fields argues that the district court erred, because the court did not consider his efforts

at drug counseling and his employment, and failed to give adequate weight to his

argument that the sweat patch could have been contaminated. 

Appellate Case: 08-2468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2008 Entry ID: 3478673
-2-

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Fields had

violated his release conditions, and did not abuse its discretion in revoking his

supervised release. It is undisputed that the sweat patch tested positive, and defense

counsel did not present evidence as to how the patch might have been contaminated.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (permitting revocation of supervised release if court finds

by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of supervised release);

United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (revocation based on

finding of violation is reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court’s finding of

violation is reviewed for clear error); see also United States v. Meyer, 483 F.3d 865,

869 (8th Cir. 2007) (concluding that sweat patch results are generally reliable method

of determining probation violation, although there may be instances where offenders

offer compelling reasons to believe positive test results from sweat patches are

erroneous; district court should make such determination on case-by-case basis).

We also conclude that the 8-month revocation sentence is not unreasonable as

the record shows that the district court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

in determining the sentence. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.

2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in

accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); United States v.

Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (all that is required is evidence that

court considered relevant matters, not that court made specific findings on each

§ 3553(a) factor).

Accordingly, we allow counsel to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2008 Entry ID: 3478673