UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4955
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUWANA ANQUANETTE BATES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-89-251-G)
Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Douglas
Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Juwana Bates appeals from the order of the district court
revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to twenty months
imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
Bates claims that the district court erred in considering
her violation conduct as a Grade A violation within the context of
U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual, § 7B1.1(a)(1) (1990), and
contends it should have been considered a Grade B violation. We
review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43
(4th Cir. 1995).
In this case, the district court was authorized to impose
a term of imprisonment upon revocation of up to five years, the
original term of supervised release, because her original offense
was a Class A felony. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 1990)
(current version at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp.
2003)). Moreover, in a revocation proceeding, the sentencing
ranges set forth in the guidelines are purely advisory. See Davis
53 F.3d at 642. Accordingly, regardless of whether Bates’
revocation conduct was properly classified as a Grade A or a Grade
B violation, the sentence imposed by the district court was not
unauthorized.
We affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -