UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4731
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAY DEMOND WALLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CR-98-51)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Davidson, DAVIDSON & KITZMANN, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Ray B.
Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ray Demond Waller appeals his twenty-four months sentence
imposed by the district court for violations of his supervised
release. We affirm.
Waller did not object to imposition of sentence at the
revocation hearing, and thus this court’s review is for plain
error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (providing
standard). Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
sets forth policy statements offering recommended sentencing ranges
for revocation of probation and supervised release. Chapter Seven
is advisory and non-binding. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638,
642 (4th Cir. 1995). However, the court should consider the policy
statements before imposing sentence. Id. If the court has
considered the relevant factors and the applicable policy
statements, the court has the discretion to impose a sentence
outside the ranges set forth in the Guidelines. Id. “A court need
not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its
consideration” of the policy statements. Id.
Here, the district court considered the relevant factors
and policy statements at issue, and we conclude that the court did
not plainly err in imposing the sentence. Therefore, we affirm.
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.
- 2 -
AFFIRMED
- 3 -