United States v. Whitten

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 97-1686

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

PAUL HARTLEY WHITTEN,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

Joseph J. Mazza on brief for appellant.

Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark Terison,

Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Affirmance Pursuant to Local Rule 27.1. for appellee.

December 18, 1997

Per Curiam. Paul Hartley Whitten appeals from a

sentence imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised

release. Whitten concedes that the imposition of an

additional term of supervised release was within the district

court's authority under United States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292,

301 (1st Cir. 1993). Notwithstanding Whitten's arguments of

legislative history and statutory construction, w e a r e

without authority to overrule another panel on this issue.

See United States v. Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446 (1st Cir. 1991).

In any event, we are not persuaded that there is reason to

reconsider our holding in O'Neil. We reject Whitten's

argument that the rule of lenity properly comes into play

here. See id. at 301, n.10.

Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.