UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 95-5649
IVAN DWIGHT WALDON, a/k/a Jive'n
Ivan,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert J. Staker, District Judge.
(CR-91-188)

Submitted: January 11, 1996

Decided: February 2, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Paul A. Billups,
Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ivan Dwight Waldon appeals the district court order revoking his
supervised release and imposing a sentence of twenty-one months.
Waldon contends that the district court clearly erred when it found
that a positive urine screen for cocaine, by itself, was sufficient to
establish knowing possession of a controlled substance during super-
vised release in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(g) (West Supp.
1995). Finding that the district court's factual determination was not
clearly erroneous, we affirm.

We have previously held that the determination of whether culpa-
ble use is established solely by laboratory tests is properly left to the
district courts. United States v. Clark, 30 F.3d 23, 26 n.2 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3421 (U.S. Nov. 28, 1994)
(No. 94-6495); see also United States v. Almand , 992 F.2d 316, 318
(11th Cir. 1993) (district court's finding that positive urine test was
sufficient to establish possession of drugs under§ 3583(g) was not
clearly erroneous). Furthermore, in the instant case, in addition to the
positive drug screen, the Government offered evidence of a continu-
ing pattern of drug abuse by Waldon. Waldon offered no evidence of
passive or innocent ingestion of cocaine and did not dispute the
results of his urine analysis.

Under such circumstances, we cannot find the district court's deter-
mination clearly erroneous, and we thus affirm the district court's
revocation of supervised release. 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

                     2
