UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4363

KENNETH HAROLD BAILEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CR-89-2-F)

Submitted: September 29, 1998

Decided: October 19, 1998

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Edwin C. Walker,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Kenneth Bailey, junior appeals from a district court judgment

revoking his supervised release and ordering that he be imprisoned for

a period of twenty-four months. Bailey was convicted pursuant to his

guilty plea of conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine in 1989. He

was sentenced to 51 months incarceration and 60 months supervised

release. His term of supervised release began in July 1993.

During the course of his supervision, he provided three urine specimens which tested positive for cocaine, and on three other occasions

failed to provide urine samples. Because the use of controlled substances constituted a violation of the terms of his supervised release,

after these violations Bailey was placed in a community corrections

center for drug treatment for a period of 120 days. He was released

from the community center on November 28, 1997. In January and

March of 1998, however, Bailey again tested positive for cocaine.

Pursuant to his continued violations of the terms of his supervised

release, his probation officer moved the court on March 26, 1998, for

revocation of his supervised release.

Bailey admitted to the violations. His violations constituted a

Grade C violation which, when combined with his criminal history

category of I, placed him within a guideline range of three to nine

months under the Chapter 7 policy statements of the Sentencing

Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, §§ 7B1.1, 7B1.4

(1995). At Bailey's revocation hearing, however, the district judge

stated that he believed that the only way Bailey could overcome his

drug problem was to receive substance abuse treatment on an inhouse basis. Accordingly, he ordered that Bailey be confined at Butner, North Carolina, for 24 months and receive substance abuse treatment.

 2
On appeal, Bailey contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence outside the guideline range where he only

used cocaine twice over a two-month period, where he was willing to

undergo in-patient drug treatment, and where he demonstrated that he

had a good employment record and family support. We disagree. We

have held that the Chapter 7 policy statements of the Sentencing

Guidelines are non-binding, advisory guides in revocation proceedings. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995).

While these advisory guides must be "considered," this does not

require the district court to specifically discuss the suggested guidelines. Rather, we may infer the district court's consideration where,

as in this case, the probation officer's worksheet discussed the relevant policy statement. See id.

We find that the imposition of a 24-month sentence was reasonable

under the circumstances of this case. Although Bailey's last two violations of his supervised release prompted the motion for revocation,

there is no dispute that he committed several prior violations. Particularly in light of the fact that Bailey twice violated the terms of his

release shortly after his release from the community center, the district court reasonably concluded that Bailey needed a more protracted

period of in-house drug treatment. Moreover, because Bailey had

been convicted of a Class A felony, the court could have imprisoned

Bailey for as long as 60, rather than 24, months. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3) (1994).

Accordingly, the judgment order of the district court is affirmed.

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