Filed: Feb. 21, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4478 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELISSA PRINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-04-229) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4478 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELISSA PRINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-04-229) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4478
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MELISSA PRINE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-04-229)
Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd A. Twyman, TWYMAN LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, W.
Chad Noel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Melissa Prine appeals her thirty-seven month prison
sentence resulting from her conviction for delivery of cocaine base
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000).* Finding no error,
we affirm.
Prine claims that the district court erred by not
crediting her sentence for seven months of home confinement prior
to her sentence. Contrary to Prine’s claim, time spent on home
confinement with electronic monitoring does not constitute time
served in “official detention” under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (2000).
Randall v. Whelan,
938 F.2d 522, 524 (4th Cir. 1991); United
States v. Insley,
927 F.2d 185, 186 (4th Cir. 1991). Therefore,
the district court properly declined to credit Prine’s sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Prine’s sentence. 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
*
Prine does not appeal her conviction.
- 2 -