US v. Charles Hooper

Filing 920081222

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4396 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES EDWARD HOOPER, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?