United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-3616.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES SYDNEY BOISJOLIE, Defendant-Appellant.

Feb. 12, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Florida. (No. 94-03250\LAC), Lacey A. Collier,

District Judge.

Before ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant James S. Boisjolie appeals the sentence imposed upon

revocation of his supervised release. As the district court

properly interpreted § 7B1.1 of the United States Sentencing

Guidelines in sentencing Boisjolie, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1990, Boisjolie was convicted in federal court of 6 counts

of interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and sentenced

to 30 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release. One of

the conditions of his supervised release was that he not violate

any federal or state law. In 1994, the Government filed a petition

in federal court alleging that Boisjolie had violated several

conditions of his supervised release, including a conviction in an

Alabama state court for theft by deception. This crime carries a

maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment under Alabama law;

however, as Boisjolie had previous felony convictions in Alabama,

the court sentenced him under Alabama's Habitual Felony Offender
Act which carries a maximum sentence of life.

Following a hearing on the Government's petition, the district

court found that Boisjolie's Alabama conviction constituted a Grade

A violation of his supervised release as defined in § 7B1.1 and

sentenced him to 24 months' imprisonment. Boisjolie argues that

the district court should have found this conviction to be a Grade

B violation instead. He contends the district court erred in

determining the violation grade by applying the maximum sentence

under the Habitual Felony Offender Act rather than the maximum

sentence for theft by deception. The Government responds that the

district court properly followed the plain language of the

Sentencing Guidelines.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 A district court's interpretation of the Sentencing

Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Camacho, 40 F.3d

349, 353 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct.

1810, 131 L.Ed.2d 735 (1995).

III. DISCUSSION

Section 7B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for three

grades of supervised release violations. This section states in

relevant part:

(1) Grade A Violations—conduct constituting ... (B) any other

federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of

imprisonment exceeding twenty years;

(2) Grade B Violations—conduct constituting any other federal,

state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment

exceeding one year....

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §

7B1.1(a)(1) and (2) (Nov. 1994).
While Boisjolie violated his supervised release by committing

a crime typically punishable by a term of imprisonment not

exceeding 20 years, he was sentenced under Alabama's Habitual

Felony Offender Act which carries a maximum sentence of more than

20 years. No case law exists in this or any circuit addressing

violation grades under § 7B1.1 when a defendant has been sentenced

under a state's habitual offender act. We therefore must decide as

a matter of first impression whether the "conduct constituting any

... state ... offense punishable by a term of imprisonment...."

under § 7B1.1 refers solely to Boisjolie's commission of the crime

of theft by deception, or his commission of the theft as a habitual

offender.

 Boisjolie's criminal conduct was not merely the commission of

the crime of theft by deception, but rather his commission of the

theft as a habitual offender. As a result, his offense was

punishable under the Habitual Felony Offender Act by a term of

imprisonment exceeding 20 years. Using the maximum sentence under

the Habitual Felony Offender Act in determining Boisjolie's

violation grade is consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines'

objective of achieving proportionality in sentencing through

tailoring a punishment to fit the individual criminal and the crime

committed. U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt. A, intro. comment., at 2. The

district court correctly used the maximum sentence under the

Habitual Felony Offender Act rather than the maximum sentence for

theft by deception in determining Boisjolie's violation grade

pursuant to § 7B1.1. Although the district court had the

discretion to sentence him below the recommended guideline maximum,
it did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so.

IV. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the district court properly used the maximum

sentence under Alabama's Habitual Felony Offender Act in

determining that Boisjolie's Alabama conviction constituted a Grade

A violation of his supervised release pursuant to § 7B1.1.

AFFIRMED.