UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4495
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
COREY J. HACKETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-01-140)
Submitted: November 2, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Matthew C.
Ackley, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Corey J. Hackett appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four
months’ imprisonment following repeated violations of his
supervised release. On appeal, Hackett claims the sentence imposed
on revocation is unreasonable and that the standard for sentences
on revocation has been modified by the Supreme Court’s decision in
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Finding no support
for these claims, we affirm.
The provision of the Sentencing Reform Act that governs
supervised release was not affected by Booker. See Booker, 125 S.
Ct. at 764-68. The change effected by Booker--making the
Sentencing Guidelines advisory as to sentencing--was not a change
in the manner in which the Guidelines 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.”).
Accordingly, we reject Hackett’s contention that sentences imposed
on revocation are subject to an altered scrutiny on appeal in light
of Booker.
Hackett also claims that the district court’s imposition
of a twenty-four month term of imprisonment was unwarranted. We
disagree. We review a district court’s revocation of supervised
- 2 -
release and resultant sentence for an abuse of discretion. See
Davis, 53 F.3d at 642-43. Hackett had a lengthy criminal history
and had engaged in a rapid succession of similar criminal
infractions in blatant disregard of the law. Under these
circumstances, we cannot conclude that the district court abused
its discretion in revoking Hackett’s supervised release.
We affirm the order of the district court. 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 -