Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04370/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04370-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Lee Alston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4370

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD LEE ALSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:98-cr-00148-BO-3)

Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 14, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4370 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/14/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald Lee Alston appeals the sentence of thirty-six

months imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. Because

we conclude that the sentence is not plainly unreasonable, we

affirm. 

Alston’s supervision began in January 2005. He was

subsequently convicted on state charges and sentenced to 120 days

in state custody. His probation officer moved for revocation of

release on the ground that Alston had violated a condition of

release by engaging in criminal conduct. At a hearing, Alston

admitted that he had committed the violation. His attorney argued

that Alston’s age, work experience, clean drug record, and

educational level were grounds for a lenient sentence. The

district court expressed its surprise that Alston received only 120

days for the state offense. The court revoked Alston’s release and

sentenced him to thirty-six months in prison, within the

recommended guideline range of thirty to thirty-seven months. 

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of

supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory range

and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d

433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007).

Alston contends that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because

it was designed to punish new criminal conduct, which the district

court felt had been inadequately sanctioned by the State of North

Appeal: 07-4370 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/14/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

Carolina. We note that Alston’s contention is pure speculation;

the district court never stated that the term of imprisonment was

intended as punishment for the state offense. Having reviewed the

record, we conclude that the sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4370 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/14/2007 Pg: 3 of 3