United States v. Hayden

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
2