UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4723
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT STEWART, a/k/a BK, a/k/a Omar Mason,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:95-cr-00191-JAB)
Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior
Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna
Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Stewart appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release. On appeal, Stewart raises two
issues. First, Stewart argues that the district court abused its
discretion by imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment upon
revocation of his supervised release as the original terms of
imprisonment were imposed concurrently. As Stewart’s counseled
brief recognizes, this issue was already decided adversely to him
by this court in United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 118-19
(4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, his first alleged error is without
merit. Stewart’s second alleged error is that his constitutional
rights were violated when the district court found by a
preponderance of the evidence, instead of beyond a reasonable
doubt, that he committed a new crime that violated the terms of his
supervised release. Again, as Stewart’s counseled brief
recognizes, the United States Supreme Court decided this issue
adversely to his position in Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S.
694, 700 (2000). Accordingly, Stewart’s second alleged error is
without merit, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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
- 2 -