USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT











                                 ____________________



        No. 95-2115



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                    LINDA LAMBERT,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________



                                 ____________________



            Philip  P.  Mancini and  Cloutier  &  Briggs, P.A.  on  brief  for
            ___________________      _________________________

        appellant.

            Jay  P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney,  George T.  Dilworth,
            __________________                            ___________________

        Assistant U.S.  Attorney, and  Margaret D.  McGaughey, Assistant  U.S.
                                       ______________________

        Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  February 26, 1996

                                 ____________________











































                      Per Curiam.   Appellant Linda Lambert  appeals from
                      __________



            the district court's decision revoking her term of supervised



            release and  sentencing her for violating a  condition of her



            supervised  release.    Having  concluded  that  the   appeal



            presents no  substantial question of  law or fact,  we hereby



            summarily  affirm the court's decision under Local Rule 27.1.



            For the same  reason, we deny her motion  for release pending



            appeal.  See 18 U.S.C.   3143(b)(1)(B).  
                     ___



                      Lambert's primary contention on appeal  is that the



            court did not  explicitly consider, apply, or  articulate the



            sentencing  factors  set  forth in  18  U.S.C.    3553(a)(1),



            (a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(6).  In this circuit, a sentencing



            court need not make explicit findings on statutory sentencing



            factors, as  long as the  record reveals that the  court made



            implicit findings  or otherwise evinced its  consideration of



            the  relevant factors.   See, e.g., United  States v. Savoie,
                                     ____ ____  ______________    ______



            985 F.2d 612,  618 (1st Cir. 1993) (restitution  order).  For



            the reasons persuasively stated in the government's brief, we



            have  no doubt  that the  district  court gave  the requisite



            thought to all applicable statutory sentencing factors.



                      Lambert's remaining contentions are also meritless.



            First,  in  sentencing  Lambert, the  court  was  required to



            consider  applicable  United   States  Sentencing  Commission



            policy   statements,  including   statements  pertaining   to



            supervised   release   violations.      See   18   U.S.C.    
                                                    ___







                                         -2-





























            3553(a)(4)(B),  (5).    Second,  as  the  revocation  hearing



            transcript makes plain,  the court had no  punitive intent in



            revoking Lambert's term of supervised release  and sentencing



            her  as  it  did.   Rather,  it  sought  to devise  the  most



            effective  means to ensure  her rehabilitation from  the drug



            abuse behind her crime of conviction.  



                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ____________________________















































































                                         -3-