United States of America v. Adis Vretenarevic

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3571
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Adis Vretenarevic
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: October 21, 2024
Filed: February 13, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
While serving a term of supervised release, Adis Vretenarevic tested positive
for marijuana metabolites. The district court1 revoked his supervised release and
imposed a revocation sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment to be followed by one
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
year of supervised release. Vretenarevic appeals, arguing that he did not violate his
supervised release conditions and that the revocation sentence was substantively
unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I.
On August 28, 2023, while serving a term of supervised release, Vretenarevic
provided a urine sample that tested “presumptive positive” for cannabinoids.2 On
September 7, Vretenarevic told his probation officer that he had been consuming
cannabidiol (CBD) gummies for back pain, and his probation officer told him to stop
using the gummies immediately. On September 26, however, Vretenarevic provided
another urine specimen that tested presumptive positive for cannabinoids. When his
probation officer informed him of the new result, Vretenarevic said that he had not
taken any gummies since their September 7 conversation. The probation officer
forwarded the August 28 and the September 26 urine specimens to the national lab
for additional testing, which confirmed that both specimens contained marijuana
metabolites. On October 6, the United States Probation Office filed a petition to
revoke Vretenarevic’s supervised release, followed by a first supplemental and
substituted petition on November 1.
At the revocation hearing, the Government called Senior Probation Officer
Barbara Lukesh, who testified to the lack of oversight over the production of CBD
products, including that some such products contain a small percentage of
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a marijuana metabolite. She further testified that
anyone subject to supervised release is told that they are “responsible for what they
2 It was a condition of Vretenarevic’s supervised release that he “refrain from
any unlawful use of a controlled substance.” The metabolite ultimately discovered
in Vretenarevic’s urine samples is a metabolite of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol,
which is currently a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances
Act. See Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana, 89 Fed.
Reg. 44597 (May 21, 2024) (notice of proposed rulemaking to reschedule marijuana
from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to Schedule III);
21 U.S.C. § 812(c)(17); 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(31).

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
consume or inject into their body.” The Government also introduced a memo from
Dr. Cheska Burleson, the Laboratory Director of Alere Toxicology Services, where
the additional testing on Vretenarevic’s urine samples was conducted. In addition
to confirming that both samples tested positive for marijuana metabolites, the
memorandum opined that Vretenarevic likely used marijuana or some other product
containing THC between giving his first and second samples, as the later sample
showed an increased normalized drug concentration.
Vretenarevic testified that he purchased gummies at a local gas station; that
he had been taking about 15 gummies per day for about three weeks leading up to
August 28; that he did not knowingly consume THC products; and that he stopped
using the products in accordance with his probation officer’s instructions on
September 7. He also introduced a document related to a drug test performed by his
employer. According to this document, a urine sample provided by Vretenarevic on
September 29, 2023, tested negative for cocaine, amphetamines, opioids,
methamphetamine, MDMA, oxycodone, benzodiazepines, phencyclidine, and
barbiturates. The document did not record whether Vretenarevic was tested for
marijuana or describe the collection and testing procedure.
After considering the evidence, the district court found that Vretenarevic
knowingly used a controlled substance in violation of the conditions of his
supervised release. The court rejected Vretenarevic’s argument that he did not
knowingly consume a THC-laced product, as Vretenarevic was a long-time user of
marijuana who would know the feeling and physical effects of using marijuana or
THC. Moreover, relying on Dr. Burleson’s memorandum, the district court found
that Vretenarevic used marijuana or another THC-laced product beyond the CBD
gummies he previously admitted to using. Accordingly, the district court found that
Vretenarevic violated a condition of release. Relying on an applicable United States
Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) range of 4 to 10 months’ imprisonment, the district
court sentenced Vretenarevic to 8 month’s imprisonment to be followed by a one-
year term of supervised release.

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
II.
Vretenarevic first argues that the district court abused its discretion when it
revoked his supervised release. “A district court may revoke supervised release if
the [G]overnment proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant
violated a condition of supervised release.” United States v. Daye, 4 F.4th 698, 700
(8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citation omitted). “We review the revocation of
supervised release for abuse of discretion, and we review any ‘subsidiary factfinding
as to whether or not a violation occurred’ for clear error.” United States v. Staten,
990 F.3d 631, 635 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citation omitted). The revocation
of Vretenarevic’s supervised released rests on the district court’s determination that
he knowingly used a controlled substance, a determination we will reverse “only if
we have ‘a definite and firm conviction that the [d]istrict [c]ourt was mistaken.’”
See id. (citation omitted).
In support of its decision to revoke Vretenarevic’s supervised release, the
district court relied on the memorandum from Dr. Burleson, which explained that
both of Vretenarevic’s urine samples tested positive for THC. Consistent with that
report, the district court found that Vretenarevic used either marijuana or some other
product containing THC between the time he provided the urine samples, as the
September 26 sample had a higher normalized drug value than the sample collected
on August 28. Based on this analysis, the district court rejected Vretenarevic’s
testimony that he did not knowingly consume THC, particularly in light of
Vretenarevic’s substantial record of past marijuana use, the number of CBD
gummies he admitted taking, and his knowledge of the physical effects of those
substances. Similarly, the district court gave little weight to Vretenarevic’s
proffered test results from his employer, as the document did not describe what
procedures were used for the collection and testing of the sample.
Reviewing this record as a whole, we are not definitely and firmly convinced
that the district court was mistaken. See Staten, 990 F.3d at 635. As such, we discern
no clear error in finding that Vretenarevic knowingly used a controlled substance

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
and thus violated the conditions of his supervised release. See United States v.
Ralph, 480 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that credibility determinations
concerning witness testimony during supervised release hearings are “virtually
unreviewable on appeal” (citation omitted)); Daye, 4 F.4th at 701 (affirming
revocation of supervised release despite defendant’s testimony denying that he
violated a condition of supervised release). Accordingly, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in revoking Vretenarevic’s supervised release.
III.
Vretenarevic also argues that his within-Guidelines sentence of 8 months’
imprisonment was substantively unreasonable. Vretenarevic was released from
custody on July 8, 2024, and this appeal was submitted on October 21, 2024.
Accordingly, because Vretenarevic challenges only his term of imprisonment, we
dismiss the appeal of his revocation sentence as moot. See United States v. Aden,
830 F.3d 812, 816-17 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissing as moot where defendant
challenging term of imprisonment released from custody before appeal submitted);
United States v. Williams, 483 F.3d 889, 889 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (same).
IV.
For these reasons, we affirm the revocation judgment of the district court and
dismiss the appeal of the revocation sentence as moot.
______________________________

-- 5 of 5 --