Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete Noble MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Pete Smith, a/k/a Jose, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-01
Citations: 433 F. App'x 149
Docket Number: No. 11-6150
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete Noble MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Pete Smith, a/k/a Jose, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 149–149

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete Noble MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Pete Smith, a/k/a Jose, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6150.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2011.
Decided: June 1, 2011.
Pete Noble Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pete Noble Muhammad appeals the district court's denial of his motion to terminate his supervised release under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). We have reviewed the district court's decision and have found no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir.1999) (reviewing district court's termination of defendant's supervised release for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Muhammad, No. 2:93-cr-00117-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2011). 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.