United States of America v. JAMES G. PROPES, JR., a/k/a Tommy E. Clemons

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4145
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES G. PROPES, JR., a/k/a Tommy E. Clemons,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00212-1)
Submitted: August 4, 2015 Decided: August 19, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James G. Propes, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 10 months’
imprisonment followed by 50 months of supervised release. He
argues that the district court abused its discretion when it
imposed the special conditions of supervised release included in
his original sentence. We affirm.
We typically review for abuse of discretion the imposition
of special conditions of supervised release. United States v.
Worley, 685 F.3d 404, 407 (4th Cir. 2012). Because Propes
failed to object to their imposition in the district court,
however, our review is for plain error only. United States v.
Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
We discern no plain error in the district court’s
imposition of these special conditions of supervised release.
Propes did not challenge these conditions when they were imposed
as part of his original sentence and may not do so now. See
United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 117-18 (4th Cir. 1998)
(holding that, in appeal from the revocation of supervised
release, this court lacks jurisdiction to examine the original
sentencing proceeding in which the term of supervised release
was imposed). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the material

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument will not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --