UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 00-4098 DEMETRIA LAVERNE HINTON, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-92-53-F) Submitted: July 14, 2000 Decided: July 31, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Demetria Laverne Hinton appeals the sixty-month prison sentence the district court imposed after revoking her supervised release. Hin- ton asserts that the sentence was plainly unreasonable because it exceeded the twenty-four to thirty month sentence suggested under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (1998). Hinton also claims that the court failed to consider the factors in 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 2000) before imposing sentence. We affirm.

After a thorough review of the record--including the nature and extent of Hinton's supervised release violations (including her new criminal conduct), the probation officer's motion for revocation, and the arguments presented before the district court--we reject Hinton's arguments and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre- tion in sentencing her to a sixty-month term of imprisonment. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard of review). We also find that the district court properly con- sidered the factors set forth in § 3553(a). See id. ("A court need not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consideration of a legal issue. It is sufficient if . . . the district court rules on issues that have been fully presented for determination. Consideration is implicit in the court's ultimate ruling.").

Accordingly, we affirm Hinton's sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED