Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James G. TURNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-24
Citations: 23 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 01-4540
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James G. TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James G. TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4540.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 28, 2001.
Decided Jan. 24, 2002.
Edwin Frederick Brooks, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
James G. Turner appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the imposition of a nine-month prison term. Turner contends the district court erred in considering a conviction that was not noted in a "Petition on Probation." Turner also contends the district court abused its discretion in failing to consider alternatives to incarceration. Finding no error, we affirm.
Turner contends the district court committed plain error when it considered a charge that had not been previously noted in sentencing him. Because Turner did not raise this issue in the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We conclude the district court did not consider Turner's second assault charge in its decisions to revoke supervised release and to sentence Turner to nine months' imprisonment. Therefore, we find no plain error. We further conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Turner to nine months' incarceration rather than to an alternative form of punishment.
For these reasons, we affirm Turner's conviction and 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.