Case ID: f-appx_31/html/0256-02.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. Albert William LACY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4649.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 21, 2002.
    Decided March 27, 2002.
    
      Herbert L. Hively, II, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Samuel D. Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Albert Williams Lacy appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a twenty-four-month prison term. He contends that the district court erred in finding that he violated the terms of his supervised release. We affirm.

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. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.1992). 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.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000); Copley, 978 F.2d at 831. We find that there was sufficient evidence for the district court to revoke Lacy’s term of supervised release. We find no abuse of discretion, and therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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.