The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-4997•United States of America v. Bobby Wayne Debnam
02-4997Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 25, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4997
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BOBBY WAYNE DEBNAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-95-123)
Submitted: August 21, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Edwin C. Walker,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Wayne Debnam appeals the district court’s judgment that
revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to fifty-one
months’ imprisonment. Debnam admitted he violated his term of
supervised release by being charged with possession with intent to
distribute cocaine. On appeal, Debnam does not dispute the
violation but asserts his fifty-one month term of imprisonment was
plainly unreasonable. We disagree. After being on supervised
release for only two months, Debnam was charged with engaging in
the very same criminal conduct for which he was convicted. The
district court imposed a sentence at the low end of the sentencing
guidelines range. We conclude the sentence was not plainly
unreasonable and affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions of the parties are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.