United States v. Gamble

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4433
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDDIE GAMBLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
District Judge. (1:88-cr-00031-1; 1:88-cr-00043-1; 2:88-cr-
00134-1)
Submitted: January 27, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United
States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Gamble appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
A decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release
is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pregent,
190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). 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) (2006).
We review for clear error factual determinations underlying the
conclusion that a violation occurred. United States v.
Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003).
The district court revoked Gamble’s supervised release
solely on the basis of Gamble’s bank robbery conviction for an
offense that occurred while Gamble was on supervised release.
Gamble appealed separately from the bank robbery conviction.
Gamble conceded that if this court upheld his bank robbery
conviction, there would be no basis for challenging the
revocation of his supervised release. This court subsequently
upheld Gamble’s bank robbery conviction. See United States v.
Gamble, 290 F. App’x 592 (4th Cir.) (No. 07-4290), cert. denied,
129 S. Ct. 659 (2008).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment revoking Gamble’s
term of supervised release. We dispense with oral argument
2
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