United States v. Chambers , 81 F. App'x 466 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4355
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUSTIN CHAMBERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate
Judge. (CR-01-42)
Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: November 26, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy W. McAfee, MCAFEE LAW FIRM, P.C., Norton, Virginia, for
Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Lucas
Hobbs, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Justin L. Chambers pleaded guilty to possession of a
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2000).
Chambers was sentenced to three years probation. Chambers violated
the terms of his probation and was sentenced to twelve months
incarceration and twelve months on supervised release. After
serving twelve months in incarceration, Chambers began serving his
supervised release. Chambers violated the terms of his supervised
release. The district court revoked Chambers’ supervised release
and sentenced him to twelve months incarceration. Chambers appeals,
asserting his sentence is excessive. We review this claim de novo.
United States v. Fareed, 296 F.3d 243, 245 (4th Cir. 2002).
Chambers’ claim is meritless. The district court had statutory
authorization to sentence Chambers to an initial term of twelve
month incarceration, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2000), and twelve months
of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(3) (2000), to revoke
Chambers’ supervised release based on his violation of its terms,
18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) (2000), and to sentence him to a subsequent
term of twelve months incarceration upon revocation of supervised
release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s revocation of
Chambers’ supervised release and its resulting order for Chambers
to serve twelve months in incarceration. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3