UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4560

BUSTER HANLAN HALL, JR.,

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-90-268)

Submitted: October 31, 1996

Decided: November 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Monica K.

Schwartz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Buster Hall, Jr., appeals from the district court's order sentencing

him to twenty-four months imprisonment upon revocation of his

supervised release. We affirm.

Hall was convicted in February 1991 of conspiracy to distribute

cocaine and was sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment,

followed by three years of supervised release. Hall began his term of

supervised release on March 19, 1993. On November 30, 1995, Hall

was charged in a three-count indictment with conspiracy to distribute

and to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and aiding and

abetting the distribution of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1),

846 (West 1981 & Supp. 1996), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). Based upon his

arrest and a positive urine screen for cocaine base, the Government

filed a petition to revoke Hall's supervised release.*

Hall pled guilty to the conspiracy count and was sentenced to fortytwo months imprisonment followed by thirty-six months of supervised release. The district court also imposed a consecutive twentyfour-month term of imprisonment for Hall's violation of his supervised release. Hall appeals, claiming that he was subjected to double

jeopardy in that the same offense to which he pled guilty was the

offense forming the basis for revocation of his supervised release.

This court recently addressed an identical claim in United States v.

Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65

U.S.L.W. 3294 (U.S. Oct. 15, 1996) (No. 96-6025). Because the punishment imposed upon revocation of supervised release is considered

_________________________________________________________________

*Two of the conditions of Hall's supervised release were that he not

commit any crime (federal, state, or local) and that he not use or possess

any controlled substance.

 2
punishment for the original offense, "the Double Jeopardy Clause

does not prohibit the government from criminally prosecuting and

punishing an offense which has formed the basis for revocation of a

term of supervised release." Id. at 363; see also United States v. SotoOlivas, 44 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 63

U.S.L.W. 3860 (U.S. June 5, 1995) (No. 94-9173). Accordingly, we

affirm. 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