UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4853
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LENNY LYLE CAIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00551-RDB-3)
Submitted: May 9, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary A. Ticknor, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lenny Lyle Cain appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months
in prison to be served consecutively to his prison sentence in
another federal criminal case. On appeal, Cain contends that
the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the
petition on supervised release because it was filed beyond the
expiration of the supervised release term. We affirm.
After Cain’s case was remanded to the district court,
the court resentenced him on February 19, 2010 to a prison term
that was shorter than the time he had already served and reduced
his supervised release term to two years and seven months, or 31
months. The court ordered that he should be released that day
and stated that his supervised release term would begin, but
since he was being detained pursuant to a state writ, the court
also ordered him remanded to the U.S. Marshal. He was not in
fact released by the Bureau of Prisons until six days later, on
February 25, 2010. On September 20, 2012, Cain was arrested and
charged with offenses in another case. On September 24, 2012,
the probation officer filed a petition on supervised release
alleging violations based on the new criminal conduct, and the
court ordered that a warrant be issued the same day.
At the revocation hearings, Cain argued that his
supervised release term began on February 19, 2010, and he moved
2
to dismiss the petition on supervised release for lack of
jurisdiction. The Government argued that the supervised release
term did not begin until Cain was actually released on February
25, 2010, and the petition was timely filed. The district court
ruled that the supervised release term began on February 25,
2010, and the court denied the motion to dismiss.
Thus, the issue in this case is whether the district
court erred in this ruling. This is a question of law, which we
review de novo. See United States v. Neuhauser, 745 F.3d 125,
127 (4th Cir. 2014); United States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107,
109 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Buchanan, 638 F.3d 448,
451 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Barton, 26 F.3d 490, 491
(4th Cir. 1994). As it is undisputed that Cain was not released
by the Bureau of Prisons until February 25, 2010, we conclude
that the district court correctly ruled that his supervised
release began on that date and correctly denied his motion to
dismiss the petition on supervised release. See United States
v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (2000); Neuhauser, 745 F.3d 125.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3