United States v. Newsome

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -