United States v. Whitten ( 1997 )

USCA1 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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.
________   ___