Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson PEREZ, a/k/a Pop, a/k/a Eric Epps, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-25
Citations: 19 F. App'x 118
Docket Number: No. 01-4295
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson PEREZ, a/k/a Pop, a/k/a Eric Epps, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 19
Pages: 118–118

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson PEREZ, a/k/a Pop, a/k/a Eric Epps, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4295.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2001.
Decided Sept. 25, 2001.
Edward H. Childress, Charlottesville, VA, for appellant. Ruth Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, VA, for appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Nelson Perez appeals the twenty-four-month prison sentence the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. Perez asserts that the sentence was plainly unreasonable because it exceeded the eight-to-fourteen month sentence suggested under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2000). Perez also claims that the court failed to consider the availability of a substance abuse treatment program and other factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 1985 & Supp.2001) before imposing sentence. We affirm.
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Perez to a twenty-four-month term of imprisonment. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995) (providing standard of review). We also find that the district court properly considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Id. ("A court need not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consideration of a legal issue. It is sufficient if . the district court rules on issues that have been fully presented for determination. Consideration is implicit in the court's ultimate ruling.").
Accordingly, we affirm Perez'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.