United States v. Hayden

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4716

JAMES G. HAYDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-205)

Submitted: January 21, 1997

Decided: February 10, 1997

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Ray M. Shep- ard, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James G. Hayden was sentenced to twenty-four months' imprison- ment after a hearing to revoke his period of supervised release* fol- lowing his conviction on state charges. Hayden argues that the imposition of a separate sentence as a consequence of violating the terms of his supervised release was multiplicious with his state sen- tence and a violation of his rights against double jeopardy. Finding no error, we affirm.

Congress explicitly authorized punishment for violation of the terms of supervised release in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (1994) (the court may "revoke a term of supervised release, and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release"). More- over, this issue has been resolved against Hayden in United States v. Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3294 (U.S. Oct. 15, 1996) (No. 96-6025).

We therefore affirm the findings and sentence of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________________ *Hayden was serving a period of supervised release pursuant to a prior federal conviction when he committed the offenses in question.