UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGG L. GAMBLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-00-239)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Research and
Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregg L. Gamble appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a
term of imprisonment of one year and one day. On appeal, Gamble
asserts the district court erred in concluding he violated the
terms of his supervised release by using marijuana, and failed to
consider factors that would have resulted in a shorter term of
imprisonment upon revocation.
This Court reviews a district court’s revocation of an
individual’s supervised release for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). Upon review,
we conclude that Gamble’s claim is meritless. The Government’s
evidence was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that Gamble violated the terms governing his supervised
release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000). Moreover, the
district court chose the sentence imposed because Gamble continued
to use marijuana after a prior revocation proceeding at which the
court had declined to revoke supervised release. We cannot say
that this decision amounted to an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment of
revocation of Gamble’s supervised release, and its consequent
imposition of imprisonment. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -