Case ID: f-appx_34/html/0905-01.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. Joseph GANTT, Jr., a/k/a Jerome Michael Gantt, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4753.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 24, 2002.
    Decided May 6, 2002.
    Theodore N.I. Tondrowski, Tondrowski & Wicker, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Sara E. Flannery, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Gantt, Jr., appeals the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release. Gantt argues the Government’s evidence was insufficient to prove he violated the terms and conditions of his supervised release. We do not agree.

We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). The district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find the evidence sufficient to prove Gantt violated the terms and conditions of his supervised release by committing a new crime and by failing to notify his probation officer, as required, within seventy-two hours of his arrest.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order revoking Gantt’s supervised release. 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.