UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4032

DAN L. JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-133)

Submitted: June 30, 2000

Decided: July 12, 2000

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dan L. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Allison Bushong, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Dan L. Johnson appeals the district court's order revoking supervised release and imposing a one-year prison sentence for violating

the conditions of supervised release. We affirm.

Johnson was convicted of failing to keep required records of controlled substances, 21 U.S.C.A. § 842(a)(5) (West Supp. 1999), and

making a false statement, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001 (West Supp. 2000). The

district court initially sentenced Johnson to five years on probation,

with the special conditions that he perform 500 hours of community

service, undergo drug screening, and participate in a substance abuse

program. Johnson violated the terms of his probation. On July 29,

1996, the district court revoked Johnson's probation and ordered that

he serve a three-year term of supervised release, including a sixmonth period of home confinement with electronic monitoring. Johnson was ordered to pay any costs of home confinement unless otherwise excused by the court or the probation office. Additionally,

Johnson was required to perform 500 hours of community service and

to submit a written report to the probation officer on a monthly basis.

On October 7, 1999, the probation officer filed a petition asking

that supervision be revoked. The petition stated that Johnson had performed a total of seventy-four hours of community service (fifty-eight

hours in 1996 and sixteen hours in 1997). Additionally, Johnson had

failed to pay his home confinement costs of under $1000 and had

filed only one report with his probation officer in over two years. Following a hearing, at which Johnson did not contest the charges, the

district court found him to be in violation of the terms of supervised

release. The court revoked supervised release and ordered Johnson

incarcerated for twelve months. Johnson timely appeals.

The arguments raised on appeal have no merit. First, the district

court acted fully within the law when it sentenced him to twelve

months in prison. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th

Cir. 1995); United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§§ 7B1.1(a)(3), 7B1.4(a) (1998). Second, we note that Johnson's

complaint about bearing the costs of electronic monitoring is primar-

 2
ily a policy statement consisting of unfounded speculation about the

potential for graft among the judiciary. Further, we note that the district court had the authority to require Johnson to bear the costs of

electronic home monitoring. See 18 U.S.C.A.§ 3553(a)(2)(B)

(West 1994); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(d) (West Supp. 2000); USSG

§ 5E1.2(d)(7). Finally, we observe that Johnson's failure to undergo

drug screening was not identified as a ground for revocation of supervised release and, because it has no relation to the order before us on

appeal, is not properly before us. Nonetheless, we find wholly baseless Johnson's assertion that not appearing for screening at a local

mental health facility should be excused because it demeaned him.

We accordingly affirm the revocation of supervision and the imposition of a twelve-month term of imprisonment. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are fully

presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3