Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 08-4781
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:99-cr-317-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Joseph
Bowden
appeals
from
the
district
courts
to
revoke
Bowdens
supervised
release
and
the
Although informed of
review
the
district
courts
revocation
of
United States v.
The district court
We
review
for
clear
18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3)
error
factual
determinations
United
States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003); United
States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996).
After
reviewing the record, we find the district court did not abuse
its discretion in determining by a preponderance of the evidence
that Bowden violated the terms of his supervised release.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised
release
if
it
is
within
2
the
prescribed
statutory
for
unreasonableness,
follow[ing]
generally
the
of
original
modifications
to
sentences,
take
into
. . . with
account
the
some
unique
necessary
nature
Id. at 438-39.
of
If we
sentence.
or
substantively
unreasonable
will
supervised
procedurally
reasonable
the
decide
whether
the
sentence
is
Id.
release
if
we
revocation
district
court
considered
the
461
reasonable
F.3d
if
the
at
440.
Such
district
court
sentence
stated
is
substantively
proper
basis
for
plainly
unreasonable.
unreasonable
it
Id. at 439.
is
clearly
or
A sentence
obviously
While
the
district
court
mentioned
the
3553(a)
why
it
imposed
factors it considered.
ten-month
sentence
or
what
conclude
sentencing
that
Bowdens
sentence
was
However, we
not
plainly
statement
range
and
under
the
statutory
maximum.
that
the
imposed
sentence
is
clearly
or
obviously
unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED