Court Opinion

ID: 990145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:16:58.613232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:38.849102
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 95-5836
ROBERT L. FLEMING, a/k/a Brian
Eugene Jones, a/k/a Volvo,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-91-250)

Submitted: July 16, 1996

Decided: August 16, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Monica K. Schwartz,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robert Fleming, while under a term of supervised
release imposed upon a conviction for conspiracy to distribute
cocaine base,1 entered a New York City social club displaying a shot-
gun and forcibly removed jewelry and currency from the club patrons.
Police arrested Fleming at the scene. Subsequently, Fleming pled
guilty to first degree robbery in New York state court, and was sen-
tenced to eight to sixteen years incarceration.

One of the conditions of the supervised release imposed upon
Fleming's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base was
that he not commit a crime during the term of supervision. Conse-
quently, in a proceeding after his conviction and sentencing for rob-
bery, Fleming's supervised release was revoked, and he was
sentenced to twenty-four months in prison. In this appeal, Fleming
challenges the revocation and twenty-four month sentence imposed
for violating his supervised release as a violation of the Double Jeop-
ardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.2 Finding no merit in Fleming's
claim, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We find that our recent decision in United States v. Woodrup, 86
F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 1996), is largely dispositive of this action. In
Woodrup, we held "that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit
the government from criminally prosecuting and punishing an offense
which has formed the basis for revocation of a term of supervised
release."3 Likewise, we find that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not
prohibit a term of incarceration for violating the terms of supervised
_________________________________________________________________
1 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988).
2 See Schiro v. Farley, 114 S. Ct. 783, 789 (1994).
3 Woodrup, 86 F.3d at 363 (citing United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d
788, 792 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2289 (1995)).

                    2
release after the conviction and sentencing for the offense which
formed the basis for the revocation. Accordingly, the district court's
order revoking Fleming's supervised release and imposing a sentence
of twenty-four months incarceration is affirmed.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3