UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVEN ERNEST GLOVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-317)
Submitted: November 4, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven Ernest Glover appeals from his twenty-four-month
sentence, imposed after the district court revoked his supervised
release. Glover contends that the district court erred by imposing
a sentence above the advisory guideline range. Glover asserts that
the guideline range suggests the presumptive limits of a reasonable
sentence and that the court must find a compelling basis in order
to impose a sentence greater than the guideline range. Glover’s
interpretation of the law is incorrect. The sentencing guideline
range is purely advisory. United States v. Denard, 24 F.3d 599,
602 (4th Cir. 1994).
In any event, we hold that the district court had a
satisfactory factual basis for sentencing Glover outside of the
guideline range. While on supervised release for less than five
months, Glover violated the terms of his release by drinking
alcohol and smoking marijuana. His behavior was repetitive and
resulted in a vehicular accident, and he was unable to control his
behavior even in the halfway house setting. Moreover, he had a
history of violence and uncontrolled mental instability. We
therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing this sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Glover’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -