UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TOMAS O. CASABLANCA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:04-cr-00005-REM)
Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: March 26, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney,
Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tomas O. Casablanca pled guilty to aiding and abetting
the distribution of 1.07 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to four
months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
After being released from incarceration, Casablanca began his
supervised release in community confinement. After a hearing on
the matter, the district court revoked Casablanca’s supervised
release because he failed to follow the rules of his community
confinement center, which was a condition of his supervised
release. The court sentenced Casablanca to ten months of
incarceration to be followed by twenty-six months of supervised
release. Casablanca appeals, arguing that the district court erred
by revoking his supervised release. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
decision to revoke Casablanca’s supervised release. United
States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating review
standard). The record reveals that Casablanca had adequate notice
that a condition of his supervised release was to abide by the
community confinement center’s rules and that he violated those
rules, resulting in a violation of his supervised release.
Accordingly, this claim fails.
- 2 -
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 -