UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THOMAS ROSS STRICKLAND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:04-cr-00034-F)

Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. George E. B. Holding, Acting United States Attorney,

Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

In May 2004, Thomas Ross Strickland pled guilty and was

convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was

sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment and thirty-six months of

supervised release. In February 2006, Strickland's probation

officer filed a petition to revoke Strickland's supervised release

because Strickland had tested positive for marijuana on a number of

occasions. At his revocation hearing, Strickland did not contest

the allegations. The district court found that Strickland

committed the charged violations and revoked his supervised

release. The court sentenced Strickland to twenty-four months in

prison, the statutory maximum. On appeal, Strickland contends that

the district court erred when it imposed a sentence outside the

range recommended by the Chapter 7 advisory policy statement

because, the court stated, a longer sentence would increase the

likelihood that Strickland would be given the opportunity to enter

the Bureau of Prisons’ residential intensive drug treatment

program. We affirm.

We recently held in United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433

(4th Cir. 2006), that we review sentences imposed upon the

revocation of supervised release to determine whether the sentence

is “plainly unreasonable.” In this case, Strickland's sentence was

within the applicable statutory maximum, the court considered the

Chapter 7 advisory guideline range of five to eleven months, and
- 3 -

the court stated a proper basis for its decision to sentence

Strickland to twenty-four months in prison. See Crudup, 461 F.3d

at 440. Specifically, the court stated that it believed Strickland

was addicted to marijuana and needed intensive drug treatment. The

court imposed a sentence that was calculated to increase the

likelihood that Strickland would receive such treatment. Because

Strickland's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively

unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly

unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order

revoking Strickland's supervised release and imposing a twenty-four

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