UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

(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,

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,

(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