Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miron H. CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-11
Citations: 56 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 02-4527
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miron H. CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 627–627

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miron H. CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4527.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2003.
Decided March 11, 2003.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Edwin C. Walker, First 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, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Miron H. Cameron appeals the thirty-month custodial sentence the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. Cameron contends his sentence is unreasonable as it exceeded the eight-to-fourteen month sentence suggested under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2000). We affirm.
Our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion by the district court in imposing Cameron's sentence. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995) (providing standard of review). The district court was presented with the nature and extent of Cameron's violations, the worksheet providing the recommended sentencing range of § 7B1.4(a), and the three-year maximum sentence. In light of the fact that the district court was perfectly within its province to depart from that recommended range in light of its prior decision to depart downward based on Cameron's prior substantial assistance, see § 7B1.4, comment, (n.4), we reject Cameron's argument.
Accordingly, we affirm Cameron's 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.