UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY TERRELL NEWSOME,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:02-cr-00048-H)
Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a hearing at which Rodney T. Newsome was found
to have violated conditions of his supervised release, the district
court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to twelve
months and one day in prison. Newsome appealed. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We review sentences imposed upon the revocation of
supervised release to determine whether the sentence is “plainly
unreasonable.” See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.
2006). Newsome’s sentence was nearly nine months below the
guidelines sentencing range of 21-24 months, and the court stated
a proper basis for its conclusion that Newsome be sentenced to
twelve months and one day of imprisonment. The court considered
that Newsome was the primary caretaker for his teenage son,
however, noted Newsome’s repeated criminal conduct and his failure
to notify his probation officer of being arrested. Because
Newsome’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively
unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly
unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
determination. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials
before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -