United States of America v. Demetria Laverne Hinton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4098
DEMETRIA LAVERNE HINTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CR-92-53-F)
Submitted: July 14, 2000
Decided: July 31, 2000
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Demetria Laverne Hinton appeals the sixty-month prison sentence
the district court imposed after revoking her supervised release. Hin-
ton asserts that the sentence was plainly unreasonable because it
exceeded the twenty-four to thirty month sentence suggested under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (1998). Hinton
also claims that the court failed to consider the factors in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 2000) before imposing sentence. We
affirm.
After a thorough review of the record--including the nature and
extent of Hinton's supervised release violations (including her new
criminal conduct), the probation officer's motion for revocation, and
the arguments presented before the district court--we reject Hinton's
arguments and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in sentencing her to a sixty-month term of imprisonment. See
United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing
standard of review). We also find that the district court properly con-
sidered the factors set forth in § 3553(a). See id. ("A court need not
engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consideration
of a legal issue. It is sufficient if . . . the district court rules on issues
that have been fully presented for determination. Consideration is
implicit in the court's ultimate ruling.").
Accordingly, we affirm Hinton's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2

-- 2 of 2 --