UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5142

SHEREE CONLIFFE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-93-166)

Submitted: February 6, 1996

Decided: June 14, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and LUTTIG,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Pamela C. Deem, CAREY, HILL & SCOTT, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephanie D. Thacker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sheree Conliffe appeals from the district court's order revoking her

supervised release and imposing an additional term of imprisonment.

We affirm.

Approximately five months after Conliffe's release from prison

where she was serving a sentence for providing false information to

a federally licensed firearms dealer when she purchased firearms for

others in exchange for money or crack cocaine, her probation officer

filed a petition to revoke Conliffe's supervised release, alleging that

Conliffe had violated five conditions of her supervised release--

namely that (i) based on a positive urinalysis, she possessed cocaine;

(ii) she failed to submit to random urinalysis on five occasions; (iii)

she failed to submit two monthly reports, submitted one report late,

and failed to report to her probation officer on one occasion as

directed; (iv) she neither attended her substance abuse treatment

counseling nor rescheduled; and (v) she failed to report a change of

employment within seventy-two hours. After a hearing on the probation officer's motion, the district court found by a preponderance of

the evidence that Conliffe violated the conditions of her supervised

release by failing to submit two monthly supervision reports, failing

to submit to random urinalysis, and possessing cocaine. The court

revoked Conliffe's supervised release and sentenced her to a ninemonth term of imprisonment and recommended that drug abuse counseling be made available to her.

On appeal, Conliffe challenges the district court's revocation of her

supervised release, contending that the court abused its discretion in

revoking her supervised release and imposing a nine-month prison

term when three of four random drug tests were negative and that the

court did not consider the availability of a substance abuse treatment

program in lieu of incarceration. We review the district court's revo-

 2
cation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion. See United

States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating standard

of review).

The district court must revoke the supervised release of a defendant

who has violated one of the conditions of supervised release by possessing a controlled substance. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(g) (West Supp.

1995). At the revocation hearing, the probation officer testified that

Conliffe possessed cocaine because a random drug test yielded a positive result, failed to appear for random urinalysis on several occasions, and did not complete monthly reports--all of which were

violations of the conditions of her supervised release. We therefore

find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking

Conliffe's supervised release as required by § 3583(g). Copley, 978

F.2d at 831. We also reject Conliffe's claim that the court failed to

consider the availability of a substance abuse treatment program in

lieu of incarceration because the court, in imposing sentence, noted

Conliffe's past failed participation in a treatment program and concluded that a voluntary treatment program probably would not be

effective in the future.

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of supervised release and

the nine-month sentence. 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

 3