UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary CASTO, Defendant-Appellant, 141 F. App'x 144

PER CURIAM: Mary Casto appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to fourteen months in prison. On appeal, Casto argues the district court failed to fully consider her history and characteristics, and it abused its discretion by denying her motion for modification in lieu of'revocation. We affirm. We review a district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995).

In exercising this discretion, the district court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp.2004). The district court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual premise. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.1993). Our review of the record convinces us the district court fully considered Casto’s history and characteristics and did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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