Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger D. KING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-06
Citations: 76 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 03-4189
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger D. KING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 76
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger D. KING, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-4189.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2003.
Decided Oct. 6, 2003.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Edwin C. Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roger D. King appeals his sentence resulting from the district court's revocation of his term of supervised release. Because King admitted to the violations of the conditions of his supervised release, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the term of supervised release. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995). We must next decide if the sentence imposed by the district court was plainly unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). King had two previous revocation hearings before the district court and was warned that his next appearance would result in jail time. The district court was also aware that the United States Sentencing Guidelines recommended a range of imprisonment between five and eleven months given King's violations. The court also considered mitigating evidence offered by King before revoking the supervised release. Given King's two prior revocation hearings before the district court and the fact that the court's sentence was within the recommended range of the Sentencing Guidelines, King's sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, King's sentence is affirmed. 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.