Case ID: f-appx_55/html/0185-01.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. Ronnie Lee JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4587.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 20, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 31, 2003.
    Paul G. Beers, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie Lee Jefferson pled guilty to unauthorized use of a credit card, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1029 (West 2000 & Supp. 2002), and was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment, followed by a three-year supervised release term. Jefferson’s probation officer alleged Jefferson failed to pay restitution, failed to report to the probation officer, and failed to maintain regular employment while on supervised release. Jefferson did not appear for the revocation hearing, and the probation officer additionally alleged Jefferson violated his supervised release by committing another federal, state, or local crime due to his failure to appear. The district court revoked Jefferson’s supervised release and imposed a twenty-four month term of imprisonment.

On appeal of the supervised release revocation, Jefferson argues the district court abused its discretion in finding he committed a Grade B violation because the Government did not prove he knowingly failed to appear. A defendant acts knowingly “when he knows that the result is practically certain to follow from his conduct.” See United States v. Carr, 303 F.3d 539, 546 (4th Cir.2002) (citation omitted), petition for cert. filed, 71 U.S.L.W. 3473 (U.S. Nov. 22, 2002) (No. 02-7687). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). 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