United States v. Ezekiel Dennison, 925 F.3d 185

Ezekiel Dennison, originally sentenced for a 2006 narcotics conspiracy conviction, began a 10‑year term of supervised release in December 2015 after reductions in his prison term.
Probation petitions in 2017 alleged multiple supervised‑release violations, including a Grade A allegation: possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine based on drugs found during an October 18, 2017 search of his residence.
Officers recovered packaged drugs, sandwich bags, rubber bands, scales, multiple cell phones, ~$7,500 cash, and mail tying the residence to Dennison; a trash pull produced cut sandwich bags and a white powder substance.
Forensic testing confirmed two seized samples were powder cocaine (0.9 g and 0.3 g), not crack/cocaine base; officers and the search warrant referenced crack cocaine, but the chemist and officer testimony identified powder cocaine.
The district court found Dennison violated supervised release (including the Grade A possession‑with‑intent allegation) and sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment; the criminal judgment listed the violation as possession with intent to distribute “crack cocaine.”
On appeal the Fourth Circuit reviewed for plain error (Dennison did not object below to the crack-versus-powder identification) and considered whether the misidentification of the substance was reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dennison)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether evidence supported revocation for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine	Evidence at hearing showed powder cocaine, not crack; conviction for a specific drug (crack) was unsupported	Even if misidentified as "crack," the evidence established possession with intent to distribute cocaine generally, supporting revocation	Court: Plain error occurred (no evidence of crack), but error did not affect substantial rights; affirm revocation
Whether the misidentification prejudiced Dennison’s defense	Mislabeling could have affected notice and defense preparation	Revocation petition and hearing clearly put Dennison on notice that government alleged possession/intent to distribute cocaine found in his home	Court: No prejudice; sufficient notice and opportunity to defend
Appropriate standard of review on appeal	(implied) challenge to sufficiency but no contemporaneous objection	Government: Plain‑error standard applies because no timely objection below	Court: Reviewed for plain error and found error plain but not prejudicial
Whether the mislabeling requires correction of the judgment	Judgment lists crack cocaine contrary to evidence	Government did not oppose correction; court retains authority to correct clerical errors	Court: Error remediable by Rule 36; judgment’s substance stands because outcome unchanged

Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error review framework)
Padgett v. United States, 788 F.3d 370 (standard for revocation fact‑finding review)
Copley v. United States, 978 F.2d 829 (preponderance standard for revocation findings)
Crudup v. United States, 461 F.3d 433 (focus on breach of court order rather than specific conduct in supervised‑release sanctions)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due‑process notice requirements in revocation proceedings)
Whitfield v. United States, 695 F.3d 288 (remedies under plain‑error doctrine)
Robinson v. United States, 627 F.3d 941 (plain‑error and fairness considerations)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures when counsel deems appeal frivolous)