Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith PAUL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-04
Citations: 565 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 13-4638
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith PAUL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 565
Pages: 155–155

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith PAUL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-4638.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2014.
Decided: April 4, 2014.
Mark William Browning, Shuman, McCuskey & Slicer, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Monica D. Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Keith Paul appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release. Paul contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence allegedly seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court's legal conclusions on a motion to suppress. United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir.2013), pet. for cert. filed, — S.Ct. — (Feb. 14, 2014) (No. 13-8810). Paul's claim that seized evidence should have been suppressed fails because the exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised release revocation proceedings. See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 365, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (stating that "exclusionary rule . is incompatible with the traditionally flexible, administrative procedures of parole revocation"); United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 393-95 (4th Cir.1999) (applying Scott in context of federal supervised release revocation proceedings).
We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.