United States v. King ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4189
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROGER D. KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-128)
Submitted: September 10, 2003 Decided: October 6, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Edwin C. Walker,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roger D. King appeals his sentence resulting from the district
court’s revocation of his term of supervised release. Because King
admitted to the violations of the conditions of his supervised
release, we find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by revoking the term of supervised release. See United
States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). We must next
decide if the sentence imposed by the district court was plainly
unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). King had two
previous revocation hearings before the district court and was
warned that his next appearance would result in jail time. The
district court was also aware that the United States Sentencing
Guidelines recommended a range of imprisonment between five and
eleven months given King’s violations. The court also considered
mitigating evidence offered by King before revoking the supervised
release. Given King’s two prior revocation hearings before the
district court and the fact that the court’s sentence was within
the recommended range of the Sentencing Guidelines, King’s sentence
is not plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, King’s sentence is affirmed. 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