United States v. Dwight Williams
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dwight WILLIAMS, Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The district court’s order revoking Dwight Williams’ probation is attacked principally on the ground thtat evidentiary support was lacking.
Revocation of probation lies within the discretion of the sentencing court and the only question before us is whether the district court abused its discretion. United States v. Ball, 358 F.2d 367 (4 Cir. 1966); United States v. Taylor, 321 F.2d 339 (4 Cir. 1963).
*666 Proof sufficient to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge’s discretionary order revoking probation. United States v. Ball, supra; Manning v. United States, 161 F.2d 827 (5 Cir. 1947). All that is required is that the evidence and facts be such as "to reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of the probation.” Yates v. United States, 308 F.2d 737 (10 Cir. 1962).
Appellant’s counsel undertook to assign and argue orally before us other objections to the revocation order but we decline to consider them since they were not argued in the briefs and this court’s permission to argue them orally was not given. See Rule 10, section 8, Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
We find no abuse of discretion by the district court and its order will be Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“All that is required is that the evidence and facts be such as to reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of the probation.” (cleaned up))
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.