Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Terrell NEWSOME, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-28
Citations: 220 F. App'x 194
Docket Number: No. 06-4790
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney Terrell NEWSOME, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 220
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney Terrell NEWSOME, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-4790.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 22, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2007.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Following a hearing at which Rodney T. Newsome was found to have violated conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to twelve months and one day in prison. Newsome appealed. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review sentences imposed upon the revocation of supervised release to determine whether the sentence is "plainly unreasonable." See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.2006). Newsome's sentence was nearly nine months below the guidelines sentencing range of 21-24 months, and the court stated a proper basis for its conclusion that Newsome be sentenced to twelve months and one day of imprisonment. The court considered that Newsome was the primary caretaker for his teenage son, however, noted Newsome's repeated criminal conduct and his failure to notify his probation officer of being arrested. Because Newsome's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's determination. 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.