United States of America v. Cargill, MAGEE, FOSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS, Roanoke, Virginia, for

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARMEN MAXWELL SHOWALTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-00-59-SGW; CR-00-68-SGW)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy V. Cargill, MAGEE, FOSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney,
Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Armen Maxwell Showalter appeals from the revocation of
his probation. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the revocation. We affirm.
Probation may be revoked when the court determines that
a condition of probation has been violated and that the violation
warrants revocation. Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 611 (1985).
Revocation is discretionary, and the court need only be “reasonably
satisfied” that the terms of release were violated. United
States v. Cates, 402 F.2d 473, 474 (4th Cir. 1968). The revocation
order may be reversed only if the district court abused its
discretion. Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 222 (1932).
As a condition of probation, Showalter was prohibited
from incurring new credit charges, opening additional lines of
credit, or negotiating or consummating any financial contracts
without the approval of his probation officer. In his brief on
appeal, Showalter agrees that he conducted prohibited transactions
without approval, but he contends that he conducted such business
not in his personal capacity, but instead as the corporate
secretary of Universal General Corporation (“UGC”). However, the
conditions of his probation did not include an exception for
transactions on behalf of third parties. In addition, the evidence
was sufficient to show that UGC was essentially a shell
corporation.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Accordingly, we find that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by revoking Showalter’s probation. Thus, we
affirm. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --