Court Opinion

ID: 2965007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:07.71864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:29.975968
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1686
         

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                PAUL HARTLEY WHITTEN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Joseph J. Mazza on brief for appellant.
            _______________
            Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark Terison,
            ________________                              _______________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Affirmance
        Pursuant to Local Rule 27.1. for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 18, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  Paul  Hartley Whitten appeals  from a
                      ___________

            sentence  imposed upon  revocation of  a  term of  supervised

            release.     Whitten  concedes  that  the  imposition  of  an

            additional term of supervised release was within the district

            court's authority under United States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292,
                                    _____________    ______

            301  (1st Cir. 1993).  Notwithstanding Whitten's arguments of

            legislative history and statutory construction, w e     a r e

            without  authority to overrule  another panel on  this issue.

            See United  States v. Wogan,  938 F.2d 1446 (1st  Cir. 1991).
            ___ ______________    _____

            In any  event, we are not  persuaded that there  is reason to

            reconsider  our holding  in  O'Neil.    We  reject  Whitten's
                                         ______

            argument  that the  rule of  lenity properly comes  into play

            here. See id. at 301, n.10.
                  ___ ___

                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___