US v. Robert William Coit

Filing 920080721

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4952

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT WILLIAM COIT, III, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00129)

Submitted:

March 26, 2008

Decided:

July 21, 2008

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Robert William Coit, III, appeals the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to fourteen months of imprisonment to be followed by twenty-two months of supervised release. in revoking his Coit argues that the district court erred release because it did not give

supervised

sufficient weight to family and employment considerations pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). we affirm. We review a district court's order imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). The Finding no error,

district court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual premise. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). See James v.

The district court need

only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. Other than statements about See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000). his family and his employment

potential, none of Coit's arguments was presented to the district court during the revocation hearing. assertions of error for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. We therefore review Coit's See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); 725, 731-32 (1993); United

States v. Carr, 303 F.3d 539, 543 (4th Cir. 2002).

Our review of

- 2 -

the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err or otherwise abuse its discretion in revoking Coit's supervised release. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. 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 -