Court Opinion

ID: 1002068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:05:33.896965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:18.723509
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 00-4093
ROBERT O'DELL EDWARDS, II, a/k/a
Robert O'Dell Edwards,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-203)

Submitted: July 14, 2000

Decided: July 27, 2000

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpen-
ing, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert O'Dell Edwards appeals the twenty-month prison sentence
the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release.
Edwards asserts that the sentence was plainly unreasonable because
it exceeded the four-to-ten-month sentence suggested under U.S. Sen-
tencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (1998). Edwards also
claims that the court failed to consider the factors in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 2000), before imposing sentence. We
affirm.

After a thorough review of the record--including the nature and
extent of Edwards' supervised release violations, the probation offi-
cer's amended motion for revocation, the worksheet notifying the dis-
trict court of the revocation range recommended in Chapter 7 of the
sentencing guidelines, and the arguments presented before the district
court--we reject Edwards' arguments and conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to a twenty-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).
See 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 deter-
mination. Consideration is implicit in the court's ultimate ruling.").

Accordingly, we affirm Edwards' sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2