United States v. Hooper , 304 F. App'x 220 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4396
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES EDWARD HOOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00149-1)
Submitted: November 25, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, David R. Bungard,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John
L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Hooper appeals the district court’s
order revoking his supervised release and imposing an eighteen-
month term of imprisonment. Specifically, he argues there was
insufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding
that he made his home available for drug distribution. He
contends the attendant eighteen-month sentence is accordingly
unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s revocation of
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court
need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release
by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
(2006). Factual determinations informing the conclusion that a
violation occurred are reviewed for clear error. See United
States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 2003); United
States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996). We conclude
that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of
supervised release.
We further find Hooper’s sentence reasonable. This
court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,
2
127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007). Hooper’s eighteen-month sentence was
within the advisory policy statement range of twelve to eighteen
months and was well below the statutory maximum of two years.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Furthermore, the district court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in sentencing
Hooper, noting Hooper’s medical and mental health history, his
minimal criminal history, his involvement in drug activity
similar to conduct leading to his prior conviction, and his lack
of success with drug treatment. Applying the analysis
articulated in Crudup, we find Hooper’s sentence for violating
the conditions of his supervised release is not unreasonable,
much less plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
revoking Hooper’s supervised release and imposing an eighteen-
month sentence. 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
3