UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4705
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROGER PAUL WATSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4706
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROGER PAUL WATSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (5:97-cr-00059)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
No. 06-4705 affirmed; No. 06-4706 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, George H. Lancaster, Jr., Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Joanne Vella Kirby,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Roger Paul Watson appeals
the district court’s orders modifying his conditions of supervised
release to include the conditions that, upon his release, he be
subject to Global Positioning System (“GPS”) electronic monitoring
(Appeal No. 06-4705) and spend three months at a halfway house
(Appeal No. 06-4706). For the following reasons, we affirm Appeal
No. 06-4705 and dismiss Appeal No. 06-4706.
We review the imposition of special conditions of
supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 259 (4th Cir. 2003). Although a sentencing
court must impose various statutorily required conditions of
supervised release, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(d) (West 2000 & Supp.
2006), it also enjoys substantial latitude to “impose any other
condition it considers to be appropriate, as long as that condition
is ‘reasonably related’ to [the] statutory factors referred to in
§ 3583(d)(1).” Dotson, 324 F.3d at 260 (quoting 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(d)(1)). Such factors include “the nature and circumstances
of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant,” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006);
providing adequate deterrence, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2)(B); and
“protect[ing] the public from further crimes of the defendant,” 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2)(C). Additionally, a special condition must
“involve[ ] no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably
- 3 -
necessary” to achieve its intended purpose. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(d)(2).
Watson began his period of supervised release on June 25,
2006. Because the ninety-day period Watson was required to stay at
a halfway house following his release has concluded, we dismiss as
moot his appeal of the order challenging the imposition of this
condition in Appeal No. 06-4706.* With respect to the condition
imposing GPS monitoring, we have reviewed the parties’ briefs, a
transcript of the hearings, and the other materials submitted on
appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the condition. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order in Appeal No. 06-4705. 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.
No. 06-4705, AFFIRMED
No. 06-4706, DISMISSED
*
We note that, by subsequent order entered August 15, 2006,
the district court further modified this condition to require
Watson to serve the remainder of the ninety days on home
confinement, as soon as he secured a suitable, independent
residence.
- 4 -