UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES SILAS TUCKER, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-01-252)
Submitted: January 7, 2005 Decided: January 25, 2005
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Peter S.
Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Silas Tucker, III appeals the district court’s
order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve
months and one day of imprisonment. We affirm.
We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence
after revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). The
district court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to
exercise its discretion or when its exercise of discretion is
flawed by an erroneous legal or factual premise. See James v.
Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). The district court need
only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a
preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West
2000 & Supp. 2004). Moreover, because Tucker’s sentence does not
exceed the statutory maximum sentence under § 3583(e)(3), we review
the sentence only to determine whether it is “plainly
unreasonable.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000).
On appeal, Tucker argues that the district court abused
its discretion in determining his sentence because it failed to
consider numerous mitigating factors. We have held that, in a
sentencing hearing, “[a] court need not engage in a ritualistic
incantation in order to establish its consideration of a legal
issue. It is sufficient if . . . the district court rules on
issues that have been fully presented for determination.
- 2 -
Consideration is implicit in the court’s ultimate ruling.” Davis,
53 F.3d at 642. Our review of the record of the revocation hearing
leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion, and that Tucker’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
We accordingly affirm the order of the district court
revoking Tucker’s supervised release and imposing a term of
imprisonment of twelve months and one day. 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 -