Court Opinion

ID: 991329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:35:03.290748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:33.517787
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 96-4540

ROBERT ROBERSON,
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-88-254)

Submitted: November 19, 1996

Decided: January 22, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney,
Michael L. Keller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Robert Roberson appeals the district court's revocation of super-
vised release imposed for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. We affirm.

Roberson contends that (1) the twenty-four month sentence he
received was plainly unreasonable in light of the violations; (2) the
court did not sufficiently consider his personal character in determin-
ing his sentence; and (3) the court inappropriately set a severe sen-
tence because he is "a drug dealer" when there was no evidence he
engaged in drug dealing or use while on supervised release.

Addressing the first two claims, our review reveals sufficient evi-
dence to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing Roberson to the statutory maximum sentence for the
stated reasons. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.
1995); see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 1996).

Roberson's third contention is also meritless because the district
judge's comment that Roberson is a drug dealer does not suggest the
revocation was due to current drug dealing. Rather, the judge's com-
ments merely reflect that as a convicted drug dealer, Roberson's con-
tinued criminal activity merited a strong response from the court.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order sentencing Roberson
to a maximum penalty for his violations of supervised release. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2