United States v. Coit , 316 F. App'x 217 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT WILLIAM COIT, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00129)
Submitted: March 26, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States
Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert William Coit, III, appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
fourteen months of imprisonment to be followed by twenty-two months
of supervised release. Coit argues that the district court erred
in revoking his supervised release because it did not give
sufficient weight to family and employment considerations pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Finding no error,
we affirm.
We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence
after revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). 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). 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. § 3583(e)(3) (2000).
Other than statements about his family and his employment
potential, none of Coit’s arguments was presented to the district
court during the revocation hearing. We therefore review Coit’s
assertions of error for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b);
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United
States v. Carr, 303 F.3d 539, 543 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of
- 2 -
the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err
or otherwise abuse its discretion in revoking Coit’s supervised
release.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 -