UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5229
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM EUGENE YOUNG, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-98-5)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas E. Wray, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Sharon Burnham, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Eugene Young, Jr., appeals the district court's
order revoking his supervised release and imposing a ten-month
sentence on the ground that he violated the conditions of his
supervised release by failing to submit truthful and complete
monthly supervision reports, failing to notify the probation
officer ten days prior to changing his residence, and failing to
notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being
arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer. Finding no
error, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court's judgment revoking
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). In exercising this
discretion, the district court must consider the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). See 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp.2005). The district court abuses its
discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or
when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or
factual premise. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.
1993). To revoke supervised release, 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). We
have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in revoking Young’s supervised release.
- 2 -
Before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
reviewed a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release
for abuse of discretion. Davis, 53 F.3d at 642. This court has
not yet decided whether, after Booker, the proper standard is
reasonableness. However, Young’s revocation sentence was within
the advisory Chapter 7 revocation range of 7-13 months and can be
affirmed under either standard.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
revoking Young’s supervised release. 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 -