UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4370
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONALD LEE ALSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:98-cr-00148-BO-3)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 14, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Anne Margaret Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Lee Alston appeals the sentence of thirty-six
months imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. Because
we conclude that the sentence is not plainly unreasonable, we
affirm.
Alston’s supervision began in January 2005. He was
subsequently convicted on state charges and sentenced to 120 days
in state custody. His probation officer moved for revocation of
release on the ground that Alston had violated a condition of
release by engaging in criminal conduct. At a hearing, Alston
admitted that he had committed the violation. His attorney argued
that Alston’s age, work experience, clean drug record, and
educational level were grounds for a lenient sentence. The
district court expressed its surprise that Alston received only 120
days for the state offense. The court revoked Alston’s release and
sentenced him to thirty-six months in prison, within the
recommended guideline range of thirty to thirty-seven months.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory range
and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007).
Alston contends that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because
it was designed to punish new criminal conduct, which the district
court felt had been inadequately sanctioned by the State of North
- 2 -
Carolina. We note that Alston’s contention is pure speculation;
the district court never stated that the term of imprisonment was
intended as punishment for the state offense. Having reviewed the
record, we conclude that the sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
We therefore affirm. 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
- 3 -