United States v. Justice ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-4028
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SHANNON JUSTICE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.
    (CR-00-77)
    Submitted:   June 12, 2003                 Decided:   June 26, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael A. Bragg, BRAGG & ASSOCIATES, P.L.C., Abingdon, Virginia,
    for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Shannon Justice appeals from the revocation of his supervised
    release and the imposition of a six-month prison term.           We review
    for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to revoke a
    defendant’s   supervised   release       and   impose   a   sentence   after
    revocation. United States v. Wells, 
    163 F.3d 889
    , 898-99 (4th Cir.
    1998); United States v. Davis, 
    53 F.3d 638
    , 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995).
    The district court may revoke a defendant’s term of supervised
    release if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence,
    that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.            
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) (2000); United States v. Copley, 
    978 F.2d 829
    ,
    831 (4th Cir. 1992). There was sufficient evidence for the district
    court to revoke Justice’s term of supervised release and sentence
    him to six months imprisonment. Finding no abuse of discretion, we
    affirm.
    We 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4028

Filed Date: 6/26/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021