United States v. Wright ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 00-4561
    DARRYL WRIGHT,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
    (CR-98-100-2)
    Submitted: December 20, 2000
    Decided: January 12, 2001
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Keith Loren Kimball, COLGAN & KIMBALL, Virginia Beach, Vir-
    ginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Robert
    J. Krask, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    2                      UNITED STATES v. WRIGHT
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Darryl Wright appeals the district court order revoking supervised
    release and imposing a ten-month term of imprisonment and an addi-
    tional twenty-six month term of supervised release. Finding no revers-
    ible error, we affirm.
    We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by impos-
    ing a ten-month term of imprisonment. United States v. Johnson, 
    138 F.3d 115
    , 118-19 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Davis, 
    53 F.3d 638
    ,
    642-43 (4th Cir. 1995).
    We further find that the revocation proceedings were not invalid
    because the probation officer filed a petition on supervised release
    recommending that Wright’s supervised release be revoked. United
    States v. Mejia-Sanchez, 
    172 F.3d 1172
    , 1174-75 (9th Cir. 1999),
    cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    68 U.S.L.W. 3291
     (U.S. Nov. 1, 1999);
    United States v. Davis, 
    151 F.3d 1304
    , 1306 (10th Cir. 1998).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny as moot
    Wright’s motion to expedite the appeal. We grant Wright’s motion to
    submit the appeal on the briefs and 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4561

Judges: Motz, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 1/12/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024