Case ID: f-appx_125/html/0511-01.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. Beverly J. CRAFT, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-4781.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 9, 2005.
    Decided April 7, 2005.
    Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Beverly J. Craft appeals the fourteen month sentence imposed by the district court for violations of her supervised release. Craft did not object to imposition of sentence at the revocation hearing, and thus this court’s review is for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Four conditions must be met before this Court will notice plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) it must be plain under current law; (3) it must affect substantial rights, typically meaning the defendant is prejudiced by the error in that it affected the outcome of the proceedings; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 733-37. Craft claims she lacks control over her actions due to mental illness, but offers no evidence of insanity, incompetence, or an inability to understand her actions. The district court considered the relevant factors and policy statements at issue, and we conclude that the court did not plainly err in imposing the sentence. Therefore, 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 
      
       Because the sentencing guidelines relating to revocation of supervised release have always been advisory, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. A, United States v. Booker, -U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), does not impact the sentence imposed upon Craft.