Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04723/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04723-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Stewart
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4723

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT STEWART, a/k/a BK, a/k/a Omar Mason,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:95-cr-00191-JAB)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior

Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna

Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4723 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/26/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Stewart appeals the district court’s judgment

revoking his supervised release. On appeal, Stewart raises two

issues. First, Stewart argues that the district court abused its

discretion by imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment upon

revocation of his supervised release as the original terms of

imprisonment were imposed concurrently. As Stewart’s counseled

brief recognizes, this issue was already decided adversely to him

by this court in United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 118-19

(4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, his first alleged error is without

merit. Stewart’s second alleged error is that his constitutional

rights were violated when the district court found by a

preponderance of the evidence, instead of beyond a reasonable

doubt, that he committed a new crime that violated the terms of his

supervised release. Again, as Stewart’s counseled brief

recognizes, the United States Supreme Court decided this issue

adversely to his position in Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S.

694, 700 (2000). Accordingly, Stewart’s second alleged error is

without merit, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

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

Appeal: 07-4723 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/26/2007 Pg: 2 of 2