Case ID: f-appx_4/html/0150-01.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. Maurice GOODING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4496.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 16, 2001.
    Decided Feb. 6, 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, Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Gooding appeals from the district court order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to thirty-six months imprisonment. On appeal, Gooding contends that the district court erred in admitting hearsay evidence at the revocation hearing. We review the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.1992). Here, the revocation was mandatory in view of the firearms violation, one of three grounds cited by the Government. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(g)(2) (West 2000). The firearm was found in Gooding’s bedroom by police acting pursuant to a search warrant, and is not a part of the contested evidence. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised release, and we affirm its decision to do so. 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.