USCA4 Appeal: 23-4609 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4609

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRELL VINCENT LITTLETON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00103-WO-1)

Submitted: August 29, 2024 Decided: September 4, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Seth A. Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4609 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Terrell Vincent Littleton appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by 18

months of supervised release. Littleton contends that his revocation sentence is plainly

unreasonable because the court relied on a more serious violation than the one Littleton

admitted. We affirm.

A court may revoke supervised release if it “finds by a preponderance of the

evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.”

(e)(3). This Court reviews a district court’s revocation decision for abuse of

discretion and its factual findings underlying the revocation for clear error. United States v.

Padgett,

(4th Cir. 2015).

The petition for revocation of supervised release alleged that Littleton had

committed another federal, state or local crime (Violation 1), used and possessed a

controlled substance (Violation 2), failed to cooperatively participate in mental health and

substance abuse treatment programs (Violations 3 and 4), failed to report to his probation

officer (Violation 5), and failed to timely notify the probation officer about the arrest in

Violation 1 (Violation 6). With regard to Violation 1, the petition asserted that on

April 27, 2023, police responded to a domestic disturbance report involving Littleton, his

girlfriend, and an unidentified female. In the course of investigating the surrounding area,

officers recovered a Ruger P95 firearm loaded with 9mm Blazer ammunition. The firearm

had been reported stolen. Littleton was arrested and during a search of his person, officers

recovered four 9mm Blazer bullets in his pocket.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4609 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

At the revocation hearing, Littleton admitted Violations 1 through 4, 1 but only

admitted Violation 1 to the extent that he admitted that he possessed ammunition as a

convicted felon. He expressly denied possessing the stolen firearm. The district court

accepted Littleton’s admission that he possessed ammunition but not the firearm.

The district court revoked Littleton’s term of supervised release, relying on

Violation 1 as the most serious violation. The court sentenced Littleton to 18 months’

imprisonment to be followed by 18 months of supervised release. Although the district

court accepted Littleton’s limited admission to Violation 1, in the written judgment the

district court described Violation 1 as follows: “On April 27, 2023, the Defendant was

arrested by the Durham, North Carolina Police Department for Felony Possession of

Firearm by Felon and Felony Possess Stolen Firearm.” (J.A. 47). 2

Generally, where a district court’s written judgment and its unambiguous oral

pronouncement conflict with respect to the reason for revocation, the oral pronouncement

controls. United States v. Doswell,

, 531-32 n.3 (4th Cir. 2012). Thus, the

unambiguous oral pronouncement controls here.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of

supervised release.” United States v. Patterson,

(4th Cir. 2020). “We

will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly

1 The Government did not proceed on Violations 5 and 6, and they were dismissed by the district court. 2 “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4609 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/04/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy,

(4th Cir. 2017) (internal

quotation marks omitted). At the revocation hearing, the district court accepted Littleton’s

admission that he committed Violation 1 by possessing ammunition as a convicted felon,

and the court announced and thoroughly explained its sentence based on this violation.

Accordingly, we conclude that Littleton failed to show that his sentence was unreasonable,

let alone plainly so.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. However, we remand for the

district court to correct the written revocation judgment to specify that Littleton’s

Violation 1 for committing another federal, state, or local crime was based solely on his

admission to possession of ammunition as a convicted felon.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

4