Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenny Franklin EDMONSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-21
Citations: 172 F. App'x 37
Docket Number: No. 04-61066
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenny Franklin EDMONSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 37–38

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenny Franklin EDMONSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-61066.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decide March 21, 2006.
Richard Terrell Starrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Missisippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Omodare B. Jupiter, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenny Franklin Edmonson appeals the revocation of the term of supervised release imposed after his 2002 conviction for access device fraud. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he violated conditions of supervised release either by failing to report to his probation officer or by committing another crime.
Uncontested evidence showed that Edmonson was required to report to his probation officer in person but repeatedly failed to do so. Edmonson has also failed to show that the district court incorrectly applied Mississippi law or made clearly erroneous factual findings by concluding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Edmonson committed a Mississippi crime by writing at least one check on an account that was closed. See United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 713, 163 L.Ed.2d 543 (2005). The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking supervised release. See McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219.
Edmonson has abandoned his contention that his sentence violated the rule of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.