US v. Zervos

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joel S. Trilling, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark

T.

Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

David Eugene Crawford appeals his conviction and sentence fol-

lowing his plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to

dis-

tribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. S 846 (1994). We affirm

pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. See Columbus-American

Dis-

covery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 291, 304 (4th

Cir.

2000).

Crawford contends that the district court failed to establish a

fac-

tual basis for his plea, the Government breached the plea

agreement,

and the district court erred in attributing more than five

kilograms of

drugs to Crawford. Crawford previously presented each of these

argu-

ments to the court in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. S

2255.

See United States v. Crawford, No. 97-7138 (4th Cir. Sept. 3,

1998)

(per curiam) (unpublished). Because this Court previously

considered

these arguments on the merits and none of the exceptions

enumerated

in United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 526 U.S. 1146 (1999), apply, we affirm the district

court's

order of judgment and conviction.

AFFIRMED

2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4774

DEVIN TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(CR-98-454)

Submitted: May 11, 2000

Decided: May 19, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thanos Kanellakos, THANOS KANELLAKOS, P.C., Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States

Attorney,

Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,

Mary-

land, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See

Local Rule 36(c).

Devin Taylor appeals his 262-month sentence based upon a guilty

plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute

heroin in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. S 846 (West 1999). Taylor con-

tends that the sentencing court erred in finding he was a career

offender based upon his prior state court conviction for escape

from

custody. Taylor argues this prior state conviction was not a

"crime of

violence" under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual S 4B1.2 (1998).

Because Taylor's sentence fell within the two overlapping, dis-

puted guidelines ranges and because the court expressly announced

the sentence it imposed would have been the same under either

guide-

lines range, review of the issue presented by Taylor is

unnecessary.

See United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 432-33 (4th Cir. 1989)

(quoting United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925, 931 (2d Cir.

1988)).

Accordingly, we affirm Taylor's sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

pre-

sented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4880

PAUL DAVID HOUSE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CR-96-174-BR)

Submitted: May 11, 2000

Decided: May 19, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edwin C. Walker, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gor-

don, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for

Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Assis-

tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Paul David House appeals the district court's revocation of his

supervised release term and probation sentence, and its

consecutive

sentences based on House's admitted violations of the conditions

of

his supervised release and probation. House raises three issues

on

appeal: (1) the district court erred in imposing consecutive

sentences;

(2) the district judge failed to comply with the provisions of 18

U.S.C.

S 3584(b); and (3) the district court violated 18 U.S.C. S

3553(c), by

failing to state its reasons for the sentence imposed. Because

House

failed to object to the sentence or the manner in which it was

imposed, we review his claims for plain error. See United States

v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court made

find-

ings of fact regarding each violation of supervised release and

proba-

tion, and that it considered the applicable guidelines

provisions,* as

well as House's recidivist tendencies in imposing sentence.

Accord-

ingly, we find that the district court was well within its

discretion to

impose consecutive sentences on House's violations of his terms

of

supervised release and probation, see United States v. Johnson,

138

F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998), and further find that there was no

plain

error in the district court's compliance with the applicable

statutory

provisions. See id.; United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642

(4th Cir.

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

Court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

*See Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-7