
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin J. BLINK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-4500.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 19, 2010.
    Decided: Jan. 26, 2010.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Martin Blink appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment. Blink originally pled guilty to possession of marijuana, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.35(b)(2) (2009), and operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol over .08, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(2) (2009), and was sentenced to a 24-month term of probation. During the term of probation, Blink was arrested for, and charged with, assault on a female, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. Blink’s probation officer petitioned the district court to revoke his probation. After a hearing, the district court revoked Blink’s probation and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Blink argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he violated his terms of probation. We affirm.

The district court is authorized to revoke probation on finding the defendant violated a condition of probation. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2) (2006). We review such a revocation for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cates, 402 F.2d 473, 474 (4th Cir.1968). The district court need only be “reasonably satisfied” that the terms of release were violated. Id. We find that there was sufficient evidence, including Blink’s own admissions, to support the district court’s conclusion that Blink violated his probation by assaulting a female and by possessing drug paraphernalia and marijuana.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order revoking Blink’s probation and imposing a six-month sentence of imprisonment. 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.  