UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONNA JEAN LUCAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-99-F)
Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 28, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D.
Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donna Jean Lucas appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking her supervised release and imposing a twenty-
four-month sentence. We affirm.
We review a district court’s judgment 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 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. 2005). Moreover, because
Lucas’ sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum 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, Lucas contends her sentence is plainly
unreasonable because it exceeds the applicable range under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2004), and that a sentence
within the Guidelines would have imposed adequate punishment.
However, while the applicable sentencing range is one of the
factors to be considered, it is advisory only, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(4)(B) (2000); Davis, 53 F.3d at 640-41, and we find the
district court properly considered Lucas’ need for intensive drug
treatment when determining the length of her sentence. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2) (2000). Thus, the district court did not
- 2 -
abuse its discretion, and Lucas’ sentence is not plainly
unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 -