U.S. v. WITHERS, 13-4391. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20131121173
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 21, 2013
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2013
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Virgil Avery Withers, who finished serving a 151-month sentence on his conviction to two counts of bank robbery, now appeals the district court's order modifying the conditions of his supervised release to require him to participate in a program of the Residential Re-entry Center. Because "[d]istrict courts have broad latitude to impose conditions on supervised release," the conditions imposed are review
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Virgil Avery Withers, who finished serving a 151-month sentence on his conviction to two counts of bank robbery, now appeals the district court's order modifying the conditions of his supervised release to require him to participate in a program of the Residential Re-entry Center. Because "[d]istrict courts have broad latitude to impose conditions on supervised release," the conditions imposed are reviewe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Virgil Avery Withers, who finished serving a 151-month sentence on his conviction to two counts of bank robbery, now appeals the district court's order modifying the conditions of his supervised release to require him to participate in a program of the Residential Re-entry Center. Because "[d]istrict courts have broad latitude to impose conditions on supervised release," the conditions imposed are reviewed "only for abuse of discretion." United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Withers challenges, as he did below, the district court's jurisdiction to convict him on the original charges. Because Withers fails to specifically challenge the modification order and we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
