Court Opinion

ID: 989221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:03:32.764351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:52:12.450758
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 95-5349

EFRAIM HARVEY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-47)

Submitted: April 15, 1996

Decided: April 29, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randy V. Cargill, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.
Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Thomas L. Eckert, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Efraim Harvey appeals the district court judgment revoking his
probation and imposing a sentence of forty-five months imprison-
ment. Harvey contends that the district court erred in admitting eight
positive urinalysis laboratory reports without sufficient indicia of reli-
ability. Further, Harvey alleges that insufficient evidence supported
the revocation of his probation. We affirm.

In the probation revocation context, hearsay evidence is admissible
if it is "demonstrably reliable." United States v. McCallum, 677 F.2d
1024, 1026 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1010 (1982). We have
considered and reviewed the lab reports, but we conclude that any
inconsistencies in the labelling of the reports do not warrant reversal.
We also find it extremely unlikely that all eight reports were incor-
rectly handled. Harvey offered no evidence concerning that impor-
tance of the inconsistencies to which he refers, and he did not testify
at the hearing.

Evidence of a probation violation must "reasonably satisfy" the
court that the Defendant has violated the terms of his probation. Evi-
dence beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. United States v.
Holland, 874 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (11th Cir. 1989); see also United
States v. Cates, 402 F.2d 473, 474 (4th Cir. 1968). We review the dis-
trict court's finding that Harvey violated his probation under an abuse
of discretion standard. Holland, 874 F.2d at 1474.

Harvey's conditions of probation required him to refrain from the
possession or use of any narcotic or controlled substance except as
prescribed by a physician. In light of Harvey's eight positive drug
screens, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in revoking Harvey's probation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court. 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