Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. George Paul WHITE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-29
Citations: 200 F. App'x 35
Docket Number: No. 05-3639-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. George Paul WHITE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Chief Judge, Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 200
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. George Paul WHITE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-3639-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 29, 2006.
Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
Paul D. Silver, Assistant United States Attorney (Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, on the brief), Albany, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Chief Judge, Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
The Clerk of the Court is requested to modify the official caption to reflect the defendant-appellant's correct name.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-appellant George Paul White, Jr. appeals from a June 27, 2005 order (Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge) sentencing him to sixteen months' imprisonment for the violation of the terms of his supervised release. On appeal, defendant argues that sixteen months was unreasonable because his drug addiction constitutes a serious medical problem that further incarceration will not resolve.
We review a sentence imposed for the violation of the conditions of supervised release for reasonableness. See United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273, 277 (2d Cir.2005). Defendant argues that his sentence is unreasonable because an extended period of incarceration is unlikely to aid him in his quest to conquer his drug addiction. We disagree. Defendant's persistent drug use was not simply evidence of addiction; it was further criminal conduct. The district court has already afforded the defendant numerous opportunities to break his addiction in a non-incarceratory setting. The district judge found, and we agree, that defendant has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to stay off drugs when free under the conditions of supervised release. Given the available options, defendant's history of repeated drug violations, and the comparative severity of his violations versus the standard case, we see nothing unreasonable in the district judge's sentence.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of New York is hereby AFFIRMED.