United States v. Jones ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1816



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                   DAVID J. JONES,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Neal K. Stillman on brief for appellant
________________

            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States Attorney, Margaret D.  McGaughey,
________________                           ______________________

        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  and   Jonathan  A.  Toof,  Assistant  U.S.
__________________

        Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  December 27, 1996

                                 ____________________





























                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
___________



            record,  we   find   no  merit   in   defendant's   appellate



            contentions.



                 First,   the  imposition   of  an  additional   term  of



            supervised release was within the district court's authority,



            see  United  States v.  O'Neil, 11  F.3d  292, 301  (1st Cir.
___  ______________     ______



            1993), and so  the district court did not  err in refusing to



            vacate that  term.  We find no reason to depart here from the



            holding in O'Neil.
______



                 Second,  defendant was  not entitled  to credit  for his



            home detention,  see United States v.  Reyes-Mercado, 22 F.3d
___ _____________     _____________



            363,  367-68 (1st Cir. 1994),  and so the  district court did



            not  err in refusing to  modify the sentence  to include such



            credit.



                 Because the merits of this appeal are easily resolved in



            the government's  favor, we  do not address  the government's



            objections  regarding  procedural  waiver and  jurisdictional



            defects in the district court and this court.



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________   ___































                                         -2-