Case ID: f-appx_69/html/0155-01.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. Shannon JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4028.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2003.
    Decided June 26, 2003.
    Michael A. Bragg, Bragg & Associates, P.L.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Shannon Justice appeals from the revocation of his supervised release and the imposition of a six-month prison term. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release and impose a sentence after revocation. United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889, 898-99 (4th Cir.1998); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). The district court may revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.1992). There was sufficient evidence for the district court to revoke Justice’s term of supervised release and sentence him to six months imprisonment. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 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.