US v. James Propes, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00212-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999643187].. [15-4145]

Appeal: 15-4145

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES G. PROPES, JR., a/k/a Tommy E. Clemons,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00212-1)

Submitted:

August 4, 2015

Decided:

August 19, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4145

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James G. Propes, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 10 months’
imprisonment followed by 50 months of supervised release.

He

argues that the district court abused its discretion when it
imposed the special conditions of supervised release included in
his original sentence.

We affirm.

We typically review for abuse of discretion the imposition
of special conditions of supervised release.
Worley,
failed

685
to

F.3d

404,

object

to

407

their

(4th

Cir.

United States v.

2012).

imposition

in

Because
district

the

however, our review is for plain error only.

Propes
court,

United States v.

Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
We

discern

no

plain

error

in

the

district

court’s

imposition of these special conditions of supervised release.
Propes did not challenge these conditions when they were imposed
as part of his original sentence and may not do so now.

See

United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 117-18 (4th Cir. 1998)
(holding

that,

in

appeal

from

the

revocation

of

supervised

release, this court lacks jurisdiction to examine the original
sentencing proceeding in which the term of supervised release
was

imposed).

order.
legal

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately
2

presented

in

the

material

Appeal: 15-4145

before

Doc: 24

this

Filed: 08/19/2015

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

will

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3