
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Windell Felton CRAWLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4621.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 22, 2005.
    Decided: Dec. 29, 2005.
    
      Craig W. Sampson, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Vince Gambale, Brian R. Hood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Windell Felton Crawley appeals from his thirty-six-month sentence, imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. Crawley contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence above the advisory guideline range and by failing to consider factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Crawley asserts that the district court’s deviation from the advisory guideline range was unreasonable because of Crawley’s age, criminal history, and the progress of his rehabilitation.

At the revocation hearing, Crawley’s second in nine months, the district court heard testimony that Crawley violated several conditions of his supervised release, including testing positive for cocaine use and failing to pay child support. We conclude that the district court had a satisfactory factual basis for sentencing Crawley outside the advisory guideline range and within the statutory maximum.

Additionally, we find that the district court sufficiently considered Crawley’s circumstances and the purposes of sentencing. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236, 1240-41 (10th Cir.2005). The district court specifically noted Crawley’s “inclination to violate the law,” his reluctance to pay child support, and the lack of rehabilitative success he demonstrated during his term of supervised release.

Accordingly, we affirm Crawley’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  