UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4335

CARROLL SIMPKINS, III, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-60)

Submitted: September 8, 1999

Decided: September 28, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 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_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Carroll Simpkins III, appeals the thirty-six-month prison sentence the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. Simp- kins asserts that the sentence was unreasonable because it exceeded the eighteen-to-twenty-four month sentence suggested under U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 7B1.4, p.s. (1998), he was punished for the underlying conduct with a ninety-six-month sentence, and his rehabilitative efforts warranted a sentence within the guideline range. Simpkins also claims that the court failed to consider the factors in

(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 1999). We affirm.

After a thorough review of the record--including the nature and extent of Simpkins' supervised release violations, the probation offi- cer's amended motion for revocation, the worksheet notifying the dis- trict court of the revocation range recommended in Chapter 7, and the arguments presented before the district court--we reject Simpkins' argument and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre- tion in sentencing him to the thirty-six-month statutory maximum sentence. See United States v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard of review). We also find that the district court properly considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a). See id. ("A court need not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consideration of a legal issue. It is sufficient if . . . the district court rules on issues that have been fully presented for determination. Con- sideration is implicit in the court's ultimate ruling.").

Accordingly, we affirm Simpkins' 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