UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4438
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LOUIS MILES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-96-20)
Submitted: October 22, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael F.
Joseph, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Louis Miles appeals the district court’s
imposition of a twenty-four month term of imprisonment upon the
revocation of his supervised release.
In 1996, Miles pleaded guilty to theft of an interstate
shipment of freight from a motor truck. See 18 U.S.C. § 659
(1994). The district court sentenced Miles to six months’
imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised
release.
In 1997, Miles’ probation officer filed a petition
seeking Miles’ arrest and revocation of his supervised release
based on several violations of the conditions of supervised
release. At the time the petition was filed, however, Miles had
absconded from supervision and his whereabouts were unknown.
In October 2003, Miles was arrested by New Jersey police
officers for possession of cocaine. Miles’ probation officer then
filed an amendment to the petition, noting Miles’ new violations
based upon the New Jersey arrest. At the revocation hearing, the
district court found Miles had committed the violations and revoked
Miles’ supervised release.
Because Miles’ underlying offense is a Class C felony,
the maximum term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of
supervised release may not exceed two years. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (2000). Because Miles’ sentence does not exceed the
- 2 -
statutory maximum term set forth in § 3583(e), we review the
sentence only to determine whether it is “plainly unreasonable.”
18 U.S.C. §§ 3742(a)(4), 3742(e)(4) (2000). Given the facts of
this case, we cannot say that a twenty-four month sentence is
plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
imposition of a twenty-four month sentence. 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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -