___________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Joel S. Trilling, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION
PER CURIAM:David Eugene Crawford appeals his conviction and sentence following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent todistribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. S 846 (1994). We affirm pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. See Columbus-AmericanDiscovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 291, 304 (4th Cir. 2000). Crawford contends that the district court failed to establish afactual basis for his plea, the Government breached the plea agreement, and the district court erred in attributing more than five kilograms of drugs to Crawford. Crawford previously presented each of thesearguments to the court in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. S 2255. See United States v. Crawford, No. 97-7138 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1998) (per curiam) (unpublished). Because this Court previously considered these arguments on the merits and none of the exceptions enumerated in United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1146 (1999), apply, we affirm the district court's order of judgment and conviction.
AFFIRMED 2 UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4774DEVIN TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-98-454) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Thanos Kanellakos, THANOS KANELLAKOS, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Devin Taylor appeals his 262-month sentence based upon a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distributeheroin in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. S 846 (West 1999). Taylor contends that the sentencing court erred in finding he was a career offender based upon his prior state court conviction for escape from custody. Taylor argues this prior state conviction was not a "crime of violence" under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual S 4B1.2 (1998).Because Taylor's sentence fell within the two overlapping, disputed guidelines ranges and because the court expressly announced the sentence it imposed would have been the same under eitherguidelines range, review of the issue presented by Taylor is unnecessary. See United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 432-33 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925, 931 (2d Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, we affirm Taylor's sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatelypresented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4880 PAUL DAVID HOUSE, Defendant-Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-96-174-BR) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELEdwin C. Walker, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, 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: Paul David House appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release term and probation sentence, and its consecutive sentences based on House's admitted violations of the conditions of his supervised release and probation. House raises three issues on appeal: (1) the district court erred in imposing consecutive sentences; (2) the district judge failed to comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. S 3584(b); and (3) the district court violated 18 U.S.C. S 3553(c), by failing to state its reasons for the sentence imposed. Because House failed to object to the sentence or the manner in which it was imposed, we review his claims for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993). Our review of the record reveals that the district court madefindings of fact regarding each violation of supervised release andprobation, and that it considered the applicable guidelines provisions,* as well as House's recidivist tendencies in imposing sentence.Accordingly, we find that the district court was well within its discretion to impose consecutive sentences on House's violations of his terms of supervised release and probation, see United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998), and further find that there was no plain error in the district court's compliance with the applicable statutoryprovisions. See id.; United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). 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

_________________________________________________________________ *See Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
2 UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-7