United States v. Sloan , 51 F. App'x 468 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 02-4569
    WILLIAM FRANKLIN SLOAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
    Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-95-31)
    Submitted: November 5, 2002
    Decided: December 4, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kornbrath,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong,
    III, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    2                      UNITED STATES v. SLOAN
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    William Sloan appeals his twenty-four month sentence the district
    court imposed after revoking his supervised release. At the beginning
    of the revocation hearing, Sloan admitted to four violations of the
    terms of his supervised release, each a Grade C violation. Coupled
    with Sloan’s criminal history category of III, these violations war-
    ranted a sentencing range of 5-11 months under the Guidelines. See
    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (2000). The hearing
    itself concerned the remaining four alleged violations, all involving an
    armed robbery Sloan allegedly committed.
    At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the court explained
    that although it found the preponderance of the evidence demon-
    strated that Sloan committed the robbery, it based the revocation of
    Sloan’s supervised release and corresponding twenty-four month sen-
    tence entirely upon the Grade C violations. Sloan challenges the dis-
    trict court’s finding that a preponderance of the evidence established
    that he committed the robbery, arguing that the court admitted
    improper hearsay evidence over his objections.
    We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for an
    abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis, 
    53 F.3d 638
    , 642-43
    (4th Cir. 1995). The district court need only find a violation of a con-
    dition of the supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence.
    See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) (2000); Johnson v. United States, 
    529 U.S. 694
    , 700 (2000). Moreover, the policy statements in Chapter 7
    of the sentencing guidelines are non-binding and advisory in nature.
    Davis, 
    53 F.3d at 642-43
    .
    Upon careful review, we find Sloan’s contention to be baseless.
    The court clearly explained that although it found the preponderance
    of the evidence demonstrated that Sloan committed the robbery, it
    UNITED STATES v. SLOAN                       3
    based the revocation of Sloan’s supervised release and corresponding
    twenty-four month sentence entirely on the Grade C violations. More-
    over, the court lawfully exercised its discretion in determining to
    depart upwardly from the suggested guideline range to twenty-four
    months, a sentence that did not exceed the statutory maximum term
    of imprisonment for Sloan’s violations of his supervised release.
    Finally, the court made clear that it did not consider evidence of the
    robbery in its decision to enhance Sloan’s sentence. Accordingly, we
    affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argu-
    ment, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
    sional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4569

Citation Numbers: 51 F. App'x 468

Judges: Niemeyer, Luttig, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/4/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024