UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4245

GEORGE F. FENDERSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

(CR-93-19-H)

Submitted: February 27, 1998

Decided: April 29, 1998

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert J. McAfee, CHARLES K. MCCOTTER, JR., ATTORNEYS

AT LAW, New Bern, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

George F. Fenderson, Jr., appeals from the district court's order

revoking supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month prison

term. Specifically, Fenderson claims that the district court failed to

recognize the advisory nature of the policy statements of Chapter 7

of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1995) when imposing his

sentence. We find no merit to Fenderson's claim. Consequently, we

affirm.

After pleading guilty to conspiracy to receive and possess stolen

money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994), the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina sentenced Fenderson to twenty-one months in prison, followed by three

years of supervised release. While he was serving his term of supervised release, Fenderson was charged with violating the conditions of

supervised release in several ways, including receiving two drug trafficking convictions.

Fenderson admitted to all the violations of supervised release. Pursuant to the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, Fenderson's guideline range was twenty-four

months, see USSG § 7B1.4, p.s., which also was the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (1994). The court sentenced him to

twenty-four months in prison.

The policy statements on the revocation of supervised release

found in Chapter 7 are not binding on the courts, but rather are advisory in nature. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir.

1995). During the supervised release revocation hearing, defense

counsel specifically reminded the court of the advisory nature of the

policy statements and the court did not dispute this fact. The court

expressed dismay at Fenderson's repeated violations while he was on

 2
supervised release and commented on his inability to follow the law.

It is clear from the sentencing transcript that the judge knew that the

policy statements were advisory, but chose to impose the maximum

sentence based on Fenderson's particular record.

For these reasons, we affirm Fenderson's 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