Court Opinion

ID: 2964456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:59.320541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:24.413286
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1816

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   DAVID J. JONES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Neal K. Stillman on brief for appellant
            ________________
            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States Attorney, Margaret D.  McGaughey,
            ________________                           ______________________
        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  and   Jonathan  A.  Toof,  Assistant  U.S.
                                          __________________
        Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 27, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
                 ___________

            record,  we   find   no  merit   in   defendant's   appellate

            contentions.  

                 First,   the  imposition   of  an  additional   term  of

            supervised release was within the district court's authority,

            see  United  States v.  O'Neil, 11  F.3d  292, 301  (1st Cir.
            ___  ______________     ______

            1993), and so  the district court did not  err in refusing to

            vacate that  term.  We find no reason to depart here from the

            holding in O'Neil.  
                       ______

                 Second,  defendant was  not entitled  to credit  for his

            home detention,  see United States v.  Reyes-Mercado, 22 F.3d
                             ___ _____________     _____________

            363,  367-68 (1st Cir. 1994),  and so the  district court did

            not  err in refusing to  modify the sentence  to include such

            credit.  

                 Because the merits of this appeal are easily resolved in

            the government's  favor, we  do not address  the government's

            objections  regarding  procedural  waiver and  jurisdictional

            defects in the district court and this court.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-