UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4824

TYRONE KRESIMIR HEAGGANS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-36-V)

Submitted: March 10, 1998

Decided: April 8, 1998

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian L. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Tyrone Kresimir Heaggans pled guilty to bank larceny and was

sentenced to a term of three years probation in 1996. After a series

of probation violations, the district court revoked Heaggans' probation and sentenced him to twenty-four months imprisonment. Heaggans contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing

a prison term for probation violation which exceeded the sentencing

range of four to ten months set out in the Chapter 7 policy statements.

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (1995). We

affirm.

Under current law, if a defendant violates the conditions of his probation, the court may continue him on probation or"revoke the sentence of probation and resentence the defendant under subchapter A."

See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3565(a)(2) (West Supp. 1997). Before subsection

(a)(2) was amended in 1994, when a sentence of probation imposed

under the sentencing guidelines was revoked, the district court was

"limited at resentencing to a sentence that was available at the time

of the original sentence." United States v. Alli, 929 F.2d 995, 997 (4th

Cir. 1991). The parties do not contest the district court's conclusion

that Heaggans' guideline range at his original sentencing was four to

ten months.*

After the 1994 amendment, we held that the "amended provision

plainly permits a district court to begin the sentencing process anew

and to impose any sentence that satisfies statutory and guideline

requirements." United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 (4th Cir.

1997). Heaggans argues that the district court abused its discretion in

sentencing him in excess of the four-to-ten-month range prescribed

under USSG § 7B1.4. However, the Chapter 7 policy statements are

_________________________________________________________________

*The court erroneously concluded that a criminal history category of

two and an offense level of seven yields a guideline range of four to ten

months imprisonment. The Guidelines clearly provide that the appropriate range is two to eight months. See USSG ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing

table). Because this error is irrelevant given our disposition of this

appeal, it is harmless.

 2
merely advisory. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-42 (4th

Cir. 1995). The district court concluded that a longer sentence of

imprisonment was necessary to give Heaggans an opportunity to

overcome his drug addiction. We find that the court did not abuse its

discretion.

We therefore affirm the sentence. 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