UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM MOORE, JR., a/k/a Junior Moore,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

District Judge. (3:96-cr-00047-FDW-1)

Submitted: February 17, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, Ross H. Richardson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF 

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Mark 

Odulio, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Moore, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyseven months in prison. We affirm.

In a Petition for Warrant for Offender under 

Supervision, Moore’s probation officer alleged that Moore had 

violated five terms of his release. Violation (2) stated:

NEW LAW VIOLATION. . . The defendant has violated the 

condition of supervision that states, “The defendant 

shall not commit another federal, state, or local 

crime,” in that, on 8-15-08, in Cleveland County, NC, 

the defendant was charged with failing to wear a seat 

belt, possession of drug paraphernalia, felony 

possession [of a] Sch. VI controlled substance and 

possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana. 

The charges of felony possession of Sch. VI [sic] and 

possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana 

remain pending in Cleveland County, NC. (Grade A 

violation). 

At Moore’s revocation hearing, there was testimony 

that North Carolina State Trooper Saucier initiated a traffic 

stop after he observed Moore operating a vehicle while not 

wearing a seat belt. When Saucier approached the vehicle, he 

smelled unburnt marijuana. He then called for backup. The 

backup officer, Trooper Horton, approached the passenger side of 

the vehicle to speak to Moore’s passenger, Marcus Sadler. 

Sadler reached down to the floorboard and pulled out a holstered 

gun, which he attempted to remove from the holster. Horton 

grabbed the gun, and Moore and Sadler were arrested. During a 
3

search of the vehicle, officers found digital scales and several 

baggies containing marijuana in the glove compartment, a box 

containing over 300 grams of marijuana on the rear seat of the 

vehicle, and over $2600 in cash on Sadler’s person. 

The district court found that Moore had committed 

violation (2). The court stated that a preponderance of the 

evidence established that Moore “was involved with one or more 

to possess with intent to distribute and sell and deliver 

marijuana, which is a state law violation.” In particular, the 

court noted that Moore had a history of dealing drugs. He was 

driving a vehicle from which emanated a strong smell of unburnt 

marijuana. As an admitted marijuana user, Moore would have 

recognized the drug’s smell. The court concluded that Moore 

“put[] himself in the position of facilitating the distribution 

of marijuana” for Sadler. 

Moore contends on appeal that the district court 

violated his due process rights and Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32.1(b)(1)(A) because, rather than finding that he had violated 

state law as charged in the Petition, the court found that he 

instead had committed a violation of the federal drug conspiracy 

laws. While there was some discussion of federal conspiracy law 

at the revocation hearing, our review of the transcript of the

hearing reveals that the district court did not conclude that 

Moore had violated federal, rather than state law. The court
4

determined instead that evidence presented at the hearing 

established the state law violation.

We therefore affirm. 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