US v. Charles Hooper, No. 08-4396 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4396 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES EDWARD HOOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00149-1) Submitted: November 25, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Edward Hooper appeals the district court s order revoking his supervised release and imposing an eighteenmonth term of imprisonment. Specifically, he argues there was insufficient evidence to support the district court s finding that he contends made the unreasonable. his home attendant available for eighteen-month drug distribution. sentence is He accordingly Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews a district court s revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). United States v. The district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. (2006). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) Factual determinations informing the conclusion that a See United violation occurred are reviewed for clear error. States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996). We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of supervised release. We further find Hooper s sentence reasonable. court will supervised maximum affirm a release if and is not sentence it is plainly imposed within after the unreasonable. This revocation applicable United of statutory States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 2 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007). Hooper s eighteen-month sentence was within the advisory policy statement range of twelve to eighteen months and was well below the statutory maximum of two years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Furthermore, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in sentencing Hooper, noting Hooper s medical and mental health history, his minimal criminal history, his involvement in drug activity similar to conduct leading to his prior conviction, and his lack of success with drug treatment. Applying the analysis articulated in Crudup, we find Hooper s sentence for violating the conditions of his supervised release is not unreasonable, much less plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order revoking Hooper s supervised release and imposing an eighteenmonth sentence. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument contentions are adequately the and argument court because presented would not the in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
