UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY W. REDMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-00-206)
Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 8, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, L. Anna
Crawford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony W. Redman appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and imposing a twelve-month prison
term. Because we find no merit to Redman’s argument on appeal, we
affirm.
Redman asserts, as he did before the district court, that
the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.
2531 (2004), invalidated the entire Sentencing Reform Act and
therefore the district court did not have authority to impose or
revoke any term of supervised release. In United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court applied the Blakely
decision to the federal sentencing guidelines and concluded that
the Sixth Amendment is violated when a district court imposes a
sentence under the guidelines that is greater than a sentence based
solely upon facts found by the jury. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 752-56.
Rather than totally invalidating the guidelines, however, the Court
held that they are no longer binding on district courts, but are
advisory only. Sentencing courts are now required to consider the
applicable guideline range, but may “tailor the sentence in light
of other statutory concerns. . . .” Id. at 757.
We conclude that Booker provides Redman no grounds for
relief. First, the provision of the Sentencing Reform Act that
governs supervised release, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583 (West 2000 & Supp.
2004), was not affected by Booker, See id. at 764-68. Further,
- 2 -
the change effected by Booker--making the guidelines merely
advisory--was not a change in the manner in which they were applied
to revocations of supervised release pre-Booker. See United States
v. Davis, 53 F. 3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995) (“Chapter 7’s policy
statements are now and have always been non-binding, advisory
guides to district courts in supervised release revocation
proceedings.”).
We accordingly affirm the order of the district court
revoking supervised release and imposing a twelve-month prison
term. 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 -