Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    United States v. Plunkett, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Noel Plunkett's supervised release and sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The district court properly found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Plunkett violated the terms of his supervised release by being convicted of driving while impaired and resisting a public officer. Plunkett's sentence was within statutory and guidelines limits. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Plunkett, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Noel Plunkett's supervised release and sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The district court properly found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Plunkett violated the terms of his supervised release by being convicted of driving while impaired and resisting a public officer. Plunkett's sentence was within statutory and guidelines limits. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-10-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-4189

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Noel Plunkett's supervised release and sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The district court properly found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Plunkett violated the terms of his supervised release by being convicted of driving while impaired and resisting a public officer. Plunkett's sentence was within statutory and guidelines limits. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    17 views3 pages

    United States v. Plunkett, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Noel Plunkett's supervised release and sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The district court properly found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Plunkett violated the terms of his supervised release by being convicted of driving while impaired and resisting a public officer. Plunkett's sentence was within statutory and guidelines limits. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    NOEL EDWARD PLUNKETT, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 01-4189

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
    (CR-00-74)
    Submitted: September 10, 2001
    Decided: October 19, 2001
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael
    F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    UNITED STATES v. PLUNKETT

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Noel Edward Plunkett appeals the district courts order revoking
    his term of supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen months
    imprisonment. Plunketts counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although Plunkett was
    informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not
    done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
    We review the district courts decision to revoke a defendants
    supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment 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).
    Under 18 U.S.C.A. 3583(e)(3) (West 2000), the district court
    may revoke a defendants supervised release upon a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a term of his
    supervised release. Because the district court properly found Plunkett
    violated the conditions of his supervised release when he was convicted of driving while impaired and resisting a public officer, we
    conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his
    supervised release. Furthermore, because the sentence imposed is well
    within the limits prescribed by statute and by the United States Sentencing Guidelines, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in sentencing Plunkett.
    Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the district courts
    revocation of Plunketts supervised release and the ensuing sentence.
    This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

    UNITED STATES v. PLUNKETT

    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
    review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, then counsel may
    move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsels
    motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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

    You might also like