United States v. Ramdass , 182 F. App'x 175 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4880
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARK ANTHONY RAMDASS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-97-320)
Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 12, 2006
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Todd M. Richman,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney; Amanda M.
O’Neil, Special Assistant United States Attorney; James L. Trump,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Anthony Ramdass appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and imposing an eighteen-month
sentence on the basis that he violated the conditions of his
supervised release by commission of a crime, failure to submit
truthful and complete monthly supervision reports, and failure to
notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of changing
residence. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s judgment revoking
supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.
1995). In exercising this discretion, the district court must
consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2005). See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005).
The district court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses
to exercise its discretion or when its exercise of discretion is
flawed by an erroneous legal or factual premise. See James v.
Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). To revoke supervised
release, the district court need only find a violation of a
condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence.
See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3).
We have reviewed the record and find that the district
court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment revoking Ramdass’s supervised release.
- 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 -