Case ID: f-appx_1/html/0222-01.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. Darryl WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4561.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 20, 2000.
    Decided Jan. 12, 2001.
    Keith Loren Kimball, Colgan & Kimball, Virginia Beach, VA, for appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Robert J. Krask, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.
    Before DIANA GIBBON MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Wright appeals the district court order revoking supervised release and imposing a ten-month term of imprisonment and an additional twenty-six month term of supervised release. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a ten-month term of imprisonment. United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 118-19 (4th Cir.1998); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995).

We further find that the revocation proceedings were not invalid because the probation officer filed a petition on supervised release recommending that Wright’s supervised release be revoked. United States v. Meja-Sanchez, 172 F.3d 1172, 1174-75 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 982, 120 S.Ct. 438, 145 L.Ed.2d 343 (1999); United States v. Davis, 151 F.3d 1304,1306 (10th Cir.1998).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny as moot Wright’s motion to expedite the appeal. We grant Wright’s motion to submit the appeal on the briefs and 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.