UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5113
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JON DALLAS HOLDEN, a/k/a Christopher Scott
Fulton,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(CR-98-47-DKC)
Submitted: October 27, 2006 Decided: November 15, 2006
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paula Xinis, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Sherri Keene, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Stuart A.
Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jon Dallas Holden, a/k/a Christopher Scott Fulton, pled
guilty to bank fraud, access device fraud, and structuring
transactions to evade reporting requirements. He was sentenced to
twenty-seven months of imprisonment to be followed by five years of
supervised release on the bank fraud charge and three years of
supervised release on the access device and structuring charges.
Upon his release from imprisonment, Holden fled to Canada. After
he was captured, he pled guilty to two grade C violations of
supervised release. At his sentencing hearing, his advisory
sentencing range was calculated as four to ten months of
imprisonment under the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the
Sentencing Guidelines. The district court sentenced Holden to the
maximum sentence of three years incarceration for the violations
noting that Holden “did not even give the supervising officer an
opportunity to assist him in becoming law abiding and transitioning
back to society.” (J.A. 104). Holden timely appeals.
We note that the district court did not have the benefit
of our opinion in United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.
2006), to guide its imposition of Holden’s revocation sentence.
Nonetheless, we conclude that Holden’s sentence is not plainly
unreasonable, and we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -