Case ID: f-appx_11/html/0170-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Dean GOODMAN, a/k/a Deion Goodman, a/k/a Dean Goodman, a/k/a Devon Goodman, a/k/a Charles Deion Goodman, a/k/a Charles Devon Goodman, a/k/a Drell Deion, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4678.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2001.
    Decided April 26, 2001.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, NC, for appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, J. Gaston B. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Charles Dean Goodman appeals the district court’s imposition of a sixty month sentence for attempted escape to run consecutively to a previously imposed twenty-one month sentence for a supervised release violation. We affirm.

This Court reviews the district court’s decision to order consecutive or concurrent sentences for abuse of discretion. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1097 (4th Cir.1995) (citing United States v. Devaney, 992 F.2d 75, 77 (6th Cir.1993)). The Sentencing Guidelines provide the sentencing court with the discretion to impose a consecutive sentence to a current or subsequently imposed sentence if the defendant was on federal supervised release at the time of the instant offense and has had it revoked. See Puckett, 61 F.3d at 1097-98; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 5G1.3, comment, (n.6), 7B1.3(f) (2000).

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of a consecutive rather than concurrent sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Goodman’s conviction and sentence. 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.