United States v. Prine

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 2006
Docket05-4478
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Prine (United States v. Prine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Prine, (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Lisa Insley
927 F.2d 185 (Fourth Circuit, 1991)
Brett Marvin Randall v. Patrick Whelan
938 F.2d 522 (Fourth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Prine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-prine-ca4-2006.