US v. Alice Alexander

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:04-cr-00024-REM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998449209] [10-4500]

US v. Alice Alexander

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4500 Document: 19

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4500 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALICE M. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:04-cr-00024-REM-1) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Richard Walker, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4500 Document: 19

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Alice M. Alexander appeals her probation revocation

and six month sentence for one count of credit card fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (2006). After pleading After

guilty to the offense, Alexander was placed on probation.

allegedly violating the terms of that probation, her probation officer petitioned the district court for the revocation of her probation. violated the The district of court concluded in that four Alexander respects had and

terms

her

probation

sentenced her to six months' imprisonment. We review a district court's decision to revoke

probation for abuse of discretion. 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999).

United States v. Pregent, The district court need only

find a violation of a term of probation by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Bujak, 347 F.3d 607, 609 (6th

Cir. 2003) (holding preponderance of evidence standard applies to probation violation as well as supervised release

revocation); see also United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 fn. (4th Cir. 1992) ("Supervised release and probation differ

only in that the former follows a prison term and the latter is in lieu of a prison term."). Here, the district court found that Alexander did not comply with the terms of her probation by: of four separate state law 2 offenses (1) being convicted (two incidents of

Case: 10-4500 Document: 19

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

Page: 3

shoplifting, illegal disposal of solid waste, and failure to report an accident); (2) failing to report to her probation

officer; (3) failing to inform her probation officer that she was arrested or questioned by law enforcement; and (4) failing to provide her probation officer with requested financial

information.

Alexander does not contest on appeal that she was

convicted of violating state laws or that she failed to report being arrested or questioned by law enforcement. Rather, she

contends that she cannot be convicted of willfully failing to provide financial information or report to her probation officer because she suffers from adult Attention Defecit Disorder

("A.D.D."). At the outset, we note that Alexander has waived any challenge to the district court's determination that she broke state laws and failed to inform her probation officer of police contact. These, standing alone, would be sufficient to form the In

basis of the district court's decision to revoke probation.

any event, however, Alexander's claims are belied by the record. She noted in her testimony at her revocation hearing that often, she failed to comply not because of any memory or concentration issue, but rather because she did not have stamps or long

distance telephone service. decline to disturb the

Based on these representations, we district court's conclusion that

Alexander's probation should be revoked. 3

Case: 10-4500 Document: 19

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

Page: 4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4