United States v. Fusco ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1505



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                    JOHN A. FUSCO,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Randy Olsen on brief for appellant.
___________

            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret  E. Curran
___________________                            ___________________

        and Charles A. Tamuleviz, Assistant United States Attorneys, on  brief
____________________

        for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   December 1, 1997

                                 ____________________

































                 Per  Curiam.  Upon careful review, we reject appellant's
___________



            contention  that,  in   sentencing  him   on  revocation   of



            probation,   the  district  court  was  bound by  a  downward



            departure  granted  during appellant's  original  sentencing.



            The plain  language of the  applicable statute,  18 U.S.C.



            3565(a)(2), does  not support  that contention.   See  United
___  ______



            States v. Plunkett, 94 F.3d  517, 519 (9th Cir. 1996); United
______    ________                                     ______



            States  v. Redmond,  69  F.3d 979,  981-82  (9th Cir.  1995).
______     _______



            Appellant's reliance on United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S.
_____________    __________



            39, 57 n.15 (1994), is misplaced.  See United States v. Byrd,
___ _____________    ____



            116 F.3d 770, 774 (5th Cir. 1997).



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



























































                                         -2-