UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDDIE LEE WILLIAMS,
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-95-148)
Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: June 5, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eddie Lee Williams appeals the revocation of his
supervised release and resulting eight-month term of imprisonment.
Williams contends that the district court erred in revoking
supervised release and that the sentence was unreasonable. Finding
no error, we affirm.
Williams was on supervised release when he failed to make
court-ordered restitution payments and twice tested positive for
marijuana use. The court modified Williams’ sentence and placed
him in a community corrections center for 180 days. He was
terminated from the community corrections program based on his
repeated failure to comply with the facility’s rules regarding cell
phone use or possession. After his termination from the program,
the probation officer petitioned for revocation of supervised
release based on the rules violations at the community corrections
facility, as well as the previous drug use and failure to comply
with the restitution order. At the revocation hearing, Williams
admitted to all three violations, but argued that he had made
significant progress. The court revoked his supervised release and
sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment, in the middle of the
advisory guidelines range and well below the twenty-four month
statutory maximum. The court considered Williams’ criminal
history, his repeated violations of the terms of supervised
release, his employment, and the policy statements in the
- 2 -
guidelines. Contrary to Williams’ argument on appeal, the court
did not err in considering the drug use and failure to pay
restitution, which had earlier been considered in the modification
of Williams’ supervised release terms. Finally, even the non-
criminal violation of the rules at the community corrections
facility was, standing alone, adequate to support the revocation
order. After reviewing the record, we conclude revocation was
proper, and the sentence imposed by the district court was
reasonable and was not an abuse of discretion.
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 -