UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4212

ANTHONY POWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
(CR-96-18)

Submitted: November 18, 1999

Decided: November 30, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edmund John Rollo, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Whee-
ling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Powell appeals his eighteen-month sentence imposed for
violation of terms of his supervised release. Powell claims that the
district court abused its discretion first when it revoked his supervised
release and then when it imposed a sentence above the suggested
guidelines range. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Powell pled guilty to one count of distributing crack cocaine within
1000 feet of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.§§ 841(a)(1), 860
(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). He was sentenced to twenty-seven
months in prison followed by six years of supervised release. Powell
began his term of supervised release in April 1998.

On March 15, 1999, the district court held a supervised release
revocation hearing to determine whether Powell had violated his
release conditions. Powell admitted committing nine violations,
which included physically assaulting his then girlfriend on three dif-
ferent occasions, vandalizing this girlfriend's home, and failing to
report to a mandatory drug test and a domestic violence counseling
appointment. After hearing Powell's admission, the district court
revoked his supervised release and imposed an eighteen-month sen-
tence.

Powell contends that the district court abused its discretion when
it revoked his supervised release. After reviewing the record, we find
no abuse of discretion. Powell committed Grade C violations, which
gave the district court the option of revoking the supervised release,
extending the term of the release or modifying the conditions of
supervision. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3 (1998).
Based on Powell's admission that he violated conditions of his super-
vised release, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
it.

Powell next contends that the district court should have sentenced
him within the recommended guidelines range of five to eleven
months instead of eighteen months. We review this claim for abuse

                     2
of discretion and find none. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638,
640-42 (4th Cir. 1995). This claim fails for several reasons. First, the
sentencing guidelines range calculated under USSG§ 7B1.4(a) is
purely advisory. See Davis, 53 F.3d at 642. Second, the eighteen-
month sentence is less than the statutory maximum of three years. See
18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Finally, Powell
admitted committing all nine violations, three of which involved
physical violence against his then girlfriend. Thus, we find no abuse
of discretion in the court's sentencing Powell above the guidelines
range but below the statutory maximum.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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
