US v. Charles Hooper

Filing 920081222

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4396

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES EDWARD HOOPER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00149-1)

Submitted:

November 25, 2008

Decided:

December 22, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Charles Edward Hooper appeals the district court's

order revoking his supervised release and imposing an eighteenmonth term of imprisonment. Specifically, he argues there was

insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that he made the his home available for drug distribution. is He

contends

attendant

eighteen-month

sentence

accordingly

unreasonable.

Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews a district court's revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). United States v. The district court

need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. (2006). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)

Factual determinations informing the conclusion that a See United

violation occurred are reviewed for clear error.

States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996). We conclude

that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of supervised release. We further find Hooper's sentence reasonable. court will affirm release is not a if sentence it is imposed the after revocation This of

supervised maximum

within

applicable United

statutory States v.

and

plainly

unreasonable.

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 2

127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007).

Hooper's eighteen-month sentence was

within the advisory policy statement range of twelve to eighteen months and was well below the statutory maximum of two years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Furthermore, the district court

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in sentencing Hooper, noting Hooper's medical and mental health history, his minimal criminal history, his involvement in drug activity

similar to conduct leading to his prior conviction, and his lack of success with drug treatment. Applying the analysis

articulated in Crudup, we find Hooper's sentence for violating the conditions of his supervised release is not unreasonable, much less plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order

revoking Hooper's supervised release and imposing an eighteenmonth facts sentence. and legal before We dispense with are and oral argument because in aid the the the

contentions the court

adequately argument

presented not

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED

3