United States v. Ayers , 211 F. App'x 176 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY JAMES AYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (3:02-cr-00018)
Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard A. Davis, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John
L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, William F. Gould, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey James Ayers appeals the twelve-month sentence
imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release.
He challenges the supervised release revocation in the first
instance and asserts that the sentence imposed is plainly
unreasonable. We affirm.
Ayers first asserts that the district court erred by
revoking his supervised release. At the revocation hearing,
however, Ayers admitted that he had used cocaine. Thus, we find no
abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-
43 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating standard of review).
Ayers also asserts that the district court should have
modified his term of supervised release to include drug treatment
and that the court plainly erred by imposing an additional term of
supervised release. Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that the district court did not err in imposing an additional term
of supervised release. We also note that, although the district
court did not have the benefit of our decision in United States v.
Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, __
U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Nov. 3, 2006) (No. 06-7631), to guide its
imposition of Ayers’ revocation sentence, we conclude that Ayers’
sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
- 2 -
Accordingly, 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
- 3 -