UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4226
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUWANA ANQUANETTE BATES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
District Judge. (2:89-cr-00251-WLO-6)
Submitted: November 22, 2006 Decided: February 5, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON, BLACKMON, LEE & LAWSON, LLP,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juwana Anquanette Bates appeals the reimposition of
supervised release following the revocation of her supervised
release and imprisonment for twenty-two months. Bates argues that
the district court’s reimposition of supervised release under 18
U.S.C. § 3583(h) (2000) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because
the addition of subsection (h) occurred in 1994 and did not apply
retroactively to her 1989 offense. As Bates raises this issue for
the first time on appeal, review is for plain error. See United
States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.
Ct. 668 (2005). To establish plain error, Bates must show that an
error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error
affected her substantial rights. Id.
Bates’ assertion that the district court relied on
§ 3583(h) in reimposing a term of supervised release is not
supported by the materials included in the joint appendix. Though
the district court did not identify the statutory authority relied
upon in imposing its sentence, it is clear that the court need not
have relied on § 3583(h) in reimposing a term of supervised release
because 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1988), which was in effect at the
time Bates committed her initial offense, provided for the
reimposition of supervised release following revocation and
reimprisonment. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 713
- 2 -
(2000). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in
reimposing a term of supervised release.
Accordingly, we affirm Bates’ sentence. 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 -