Filed: Apr. 12, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4827 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARGARET M. ADKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-98-194) Submitted: March 22, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, Virgin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4827 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARGARET M. ADKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-98-194) Submitted: March 22, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, Virgini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4827
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARGARET M. ADKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-98-194)
Submitted: March 22, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
United States Attorney, Paula S. Klotzbach, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Margaret M. Adkins appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking her term of supervised release. On appeal,
Adkins asserts the district court erred in concluding she violated
the terms of her supervised release by violating the law and by
drinking excessive amounts of alcohol.
This court reviews a district court’s order revoking
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Copley,
978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). Adkins’ claim is
meritless. The Government’s evidence was sufficient to establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that Adkins violated the terms
governing her supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
(2000).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s revocation of
Adkins’ supervised release and its consequent imposition of
imprisonment. 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
- 2 -