UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4503

JOHN THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-6)

Submitted: January 27, 1998

Decided: February 12, 1998

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Gordon Widenhouse, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant 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_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

John Warren Thomas appeals the district court's order sentencing him to twenty-four months' imprisonment for violations of supervised release. In February 1994, Thomas pled guilty to conspiracy to pass counterfeit United States currency and use of an unauthorized access device. He was sentenced to fourteen months' incarceration on each count and thirty-six months of supervised release. In August 1995, Thomas's probation officer filed a motion to revoke his supervised release, citing Thomas's subsequent guilty plea to attempted robbery and his marijuana use.

At the revocation hearing, Thomas admitted violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release and requested that he be granted credit for time served for the supervised release violations because he had already served a two-year sentence for the attempted robbery. The district court rejected this request and sentenced Thomas to the statutory maximum of twenty-four months in prison.

Thomas now contends that the court declined to grant his request because it erroneously believed it did not have discretion to do so. See USSG § 7B1.3(f).* After a careful review of the record, we find noth- ing to suggest the court misapprehended its authority with respect to the provision at issue. See United States v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm Thomas's sentence for the violations of supervised release. 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 _________________________________________________________________

*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) (1995).

2