UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4905

JOHNSON RICHARDS ESENOWO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-194-2)

Submitted: June 26, 2002

Decided: July 22, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Sofie Wonderly Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, Wilmington,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States

Attorney, George E.B. Holding, Assistant United States Attorney,

Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Johnson Richards Esenowo appeals the revocation of his supervised release term and sentence to eighteen months’ imprisonment.

Following his guilty plea, Esenowo was convicted for conspiracy to

defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994). The district court sentenced him to fourteen months’ imprisonment, a thirty-six month term

of supervised release, 250 hours of community service, a $100 special

assessment, $50,450 in restitution, and a $50,000 fine. Esenowo did

not appeal. 

Shortly after his release from custody and the commencement of

his term of supervised release, Esenowo’s supervised release terms

were modified and then revoked. The district sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment following the revocation. Esenowo did

not object to the penalty range nor sentence imposed. Thereafter,

Esenowo appealed his sentence, contending the district court erred in

sentencing him to eighteen months’ imprisonment when his written

plea agreement recited a maximum term of twelve months incarceration upon revocation of supervised release. 

Because of the lack of objection in the district court, we review

Esenowo’s sentence imposed after the revocation of supervised

release for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725

(1993). A revocation sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment was

authorized by 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 1999 & Supp. 2001).

Furthermore, the plea agreement explained the sentencing court was

not bound by any sentence recommendation or agreement, and that

even if a sentence up to the statutory maximum was imposed,

Esenowo could not withdraw his guilty plea. Moreover, the term of

imprisonment imposed for the criminal offense and the term imposed

for revocation of supervised release did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment of sixty months. Consequently, we find

2 UNITED STATES v. ESENOWO
the district court did not err in sentencing Esenowo to eighteen

months’ imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised

release term. 

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Esenowo’s supervised

release term and his eighteen-month sentence. 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

UNITED STATES v. ESENOWO 3