UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4682

ALLEN WAYNE BENNETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-149)

Submitted: March 2, 1999

Decided: April 22, 1999

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kornbrath, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Allen Wayne Bennett appeals from the twenty-four-month sentence he received after the district court revoked his term of supervised release. He alleges that the court erroneously sentenced him to

the maximum statutory penalty because it mistakenly believed that it

did not have the authority to impose a lower sentence or another term

of supervised release. Finding no error, we affirm.

Bennett was originally convicted of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute LSD, and his sentence included a threeyear term of supervised release. Less than a year after beginning his

term of supervised release, Bennett's probation officer filed a petition

to revoke his release, alleging that Bennett had been convicted of various motor vehicle offenses, failed to report to the probation officer

as directed, failed to notify the probation officer of changes in address

and employment, used drugs on three separate occasions, and failed

to report for urinalysis testing and substance abuse counseling.1

Prior to Bennett's revocation hearing, the probation officer prepared a violation worksheet. However, the probation officer erroneously stated in the worksheet that Bennett was not eligible for

supervised release upon resentencing under the applicable statute.2 It

is undisputed that this statement was incorrect, and Bennett was eligible for supervised release. Bennett did not object to the worksheet at

the hearing.3 After hearing testimony and argument from counsel, the

_________________________________________________________________

1 Bennett admitted to all of the violations except the second one, and

the Government voluntarily dismissed it.

2 See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (1994).

3 In fact, the worksheet was not mentioned during the hearing by either

party or the court.

 2
district court revoked Bennett's supervised release and sentenced him

to the statutory maximum.

Since Bennett did not challenge the content of the probation officer's worksheet at the hearing, we review his claim for plain error and

find none. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993);

United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426, 440 (4th Cir. 1993). Even

though the worksheet contained an error, it is clear from the record

that Bennett was not prejudiced. Defense counsel asked for a term of

supervised release, but the court rejected the request. The record

shows that the court's decision was based on its belief that the violations were serious and that Bennett needed to be incarcerated for the

maximum period so that he could receive necessary drug treatment.

There is nothing in the record suggesting that the court believed it

lacked authority to grant counsel's request or to sentence Bennett to

a shorter term of imprisonment.

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3