UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4794 DARRELL HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-92-61) Submitted: July 29, 1997 Decided: November 5, 1997 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Robert H. Hale, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, John S. Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Darrell Harris appeals the district court's order revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a new period of imprisonment. Harris was serving a three year term of supervised release subsequent to completing a forty-one month sentence for armed bank robbery. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (1994). After Harris admitted three violations of the conditions of his supervised release, the district court sentenced Harris to three years in prison. In this appeal, Harris contendsthat the district court erred by considering the sufficiency of the original sentence imposed for his conviction, rather than the factors authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (1994), in revoking his supervised release and imposing the three-year sentence. Finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court, we affirm. This court reviews the district court's order imposing a term of imprisonment for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). An abuse of the district court'sdiscretion occurs when the court fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or when the court's exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual premise. See James v. Jacobson , 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). Harris contends that the district court's exercise of itsdiscretion was flawed by an erroneous legal premise in that the sufficiency of the original sentence is not among the factors of 18 U.S.C.§ 3553 (1994) enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583 as appropriate for consideration in the revocation of a term of supervised release.Although the district court considered the sufficiency of the original sentence at some length, the court also properly considered theneed "to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct" and "to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court specifically noted its concern regarding Harris's status as a recidivist. As a result, we do not find that the dis-
2trict court's discretion was flawed by an erroneous legal premise. Consequently, there was no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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