United States v. Robinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JACKIE ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-12)
Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States
Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jackie Robinson appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month
sentence, to be followed by thirty-six months on supervised
release. We affirm.
While on supervision, Robinson tested positive for
cocaine, in violation of his supervised release terms. At a
hearing on a petition to revoke supervised release, Robinson’s
attorney moved for placement in a substance abuse treatment program
in lieu of incarceration. The district denied the motion. The
court observed that Robinson had refused to participate in drug
treatment programs while in prison and during his supervised
release. Further, it was unclear whether any inpatient facility
would accept Robinson as a patient because of his medical problems.
The court stated that it had considered the factors set forth at 18
U.S.C. § 3553 (2000) in imposing sentence.
We review a district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). If a supervisee is
found to have possessed a controlled substance, the court generally
must revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1) (2000); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 7B1.4, comment. (n.5) (2002). However, when a defendant has
failed a drug test, the court also is required to address whether
- 2 -
the availability of a substance abuse treatment program warrants an
exception to the otherwise mandatory term of incarceration. 18
U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Pierce, 132 F.3d 1207, 1208 (8th
Cir. 1997); USSG § 7B1.4, comment. (n.6).
Here, especially in light of Robinson’s repeated refusal
to participate in drug treatment programs, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in deciding against a substance abuse
program and imposing a term of imprisonment. Further, the court
stated that it had considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) in imposing sentence. We note that courts are not
required to discuss each of the factors when imposing sentence.
See United States v. Velasquez, 136 F.3d 921, 924 (2d Cir. 1998);
United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d at 642.
We accordingly 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 significantly
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -