201 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 1999), 97-4774, U.S. v. Tinsley

Docket Nº:97-4774.
Citation:201 F.3d 439
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin D. TINSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:September 03, 1999
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 439

201 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 1999)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Kevin D. TINSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-4774.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

September 3, 1999

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued April 8, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-266).

Hunt Lee Charach, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Kevin D. Tinsley ("Tinsley") appeals from an order revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a revocation sentence of twenty-four months imprisonment. The district court found that Tinsley violated a condition of his supervised release when he was expelled from a halfway house known as Bannum Place.

Bannum Place expelled Tinsley for his repeated violations of the facility's rules of conduct. At a revocation hearing before the district court, the director of Bannum Place described these violations, which included Tinsley's verbal abuse of facility staff and his failure to remain employed, his failure to attend drug treatment aftercare meetings, and his failure to abide by the Bannum Place curfew.

On appeal Tinsley does not dispute the state's evidence of these violations; he claims only that he was denied due process when Bannum Place did not afford him a pre-discharge hearing. The facility's director testified that Bannum Place holds such hearings only to satisfy Bureau of Prisons regulations. Because the court, not the Bureau of Prisons, originally sent Tinsley to Bannum Place, the director concluded that no pre-discharge hearing was required in Tinsley's case.

To the contrary, evidence in the record tends to support Tinsley's claim that the facility has promised all Bannum Place residents a pre-discharge hearing. Yet in Tinsley's case any procedural defect created by the failure of Bannum...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP