United States v. Robinson ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY LAMONT ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:04-cr-00349-REP)
Submitted: May 7, 2007 Decided: May 24, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Sara E.
Flannery, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Lamont Robinson appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of
forty-two months’ imprisonment. Robinson contends he was denied
due process because the district court relied solely on his
uncorroborated confession in finding he had violated the conditions
of his supervised release. We review the district court’s decision
to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). The
district court need only find a violation of a condition of
supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (2000).
After reviewing the materials in the joint appendix, we
conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
by a preponderance of the evidence that Robinson violated the
conditions of his supervised release by committing a crime.
Robinson’s argument that the court erred in relying solely on his
uncorroborated confession is unavailing as a revocation hearing is
not a part of the criminal prosecution, and the traditional rules
of evidence are not applicable. See Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3).
Robinson also contends that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable. He argues that his advisory guideline range was
improperly calculated because it was based on the court’s incorrect
factual finding that he had committed a crime. As the court
- 2 -
properly determined that Robinson had violated the conditions of
his supervised release by committing a crime, and Robinson does not
allege that the range is otherwise improper, we conclude Robinson’s
sentence is reasonable.
We therefore affirm the order of the district court. 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 -