UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4141

JEFFREY ROBERT CARD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-92-160-N)

Submitted: August 7, 1996

Decided: September 12, 1996

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Mark M. McMillin, KMETZ & MCMILLIN, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Patrick D. Frye,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Robert Card pled guilty to theft of government property in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 641 (West Supp. 1996) and was sentenced
to five years probation and ordered to pay restitution, a fine, and an
assessment fee. In January 1995, the district court revoked his proba-
tion for violating the conditions of his probation. His new sentence
included supervised release for three years. In January 1996, while
Card was on supervised release, Card's probation officer petitioned
the court to revoke Card's supervised release because he: (1) failed
to pay his fines and restitution; (2) committed a crime (driving under
the influence); and (3) failed to submit written monthly reports to the
probation officer in a timely manner. At his supervision revocation
hearing, Card stipulated to the contents of the probation officer's peti-
tion to revoke his supervised release. In February 1996, the district
court found that Card had violated the terms of his supervised release.
Thus, the court revoked the supervised release previously imposed
and sentenced him to nine months incarceration, followed by super-
vised release for two years and three months.

On appeal, Card claims that his sentence is too severe because the
violations of his supervised release were more technical than substan-
tive in nature and degree. Specifically, he alleges that: (1) his pay-
ments toward restitution were made in good faith; (2) his driving
under the influence conviction was an aberration and he should not
be punished twice for the same offense; and (3) although he filed his
monthly reports to his probation officer in an untimely manner, he
made the monthly reports and they were not significantly late.

The sentencing guidelines provide that a court may revoke super-
vised release upon a finding of a Grade C violation. United States
Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,§ 7B1.3, p.s. (Nov.
1995). Card admitted committing a Grade C violation of his super-

                     2
vised release. The guideline range provided in Chapter Seven is three
to nine months for a Grade C violation and a Criminal History Cate-
gory I. USSG § 7B1.4, p.s. Where a court revokes a term of super-
vised release and the term of imprisonment imposed is less than the
maximum term of imprisonment imposable upon revocation, the court
may also impose a term of supervised release upon release from
imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); USSG § 7B1.3(g).* However, the
length of such a term of supervised release can not exceed the term
of supervised release allowable by statute for the offense that resulted
in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprison-
ment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 18
U.S.C. § 3583(h); USSG § 7B1.3(g). Further, upon revocation of
supervised release, a court can not give a defendant credit for time
previously served on post-release supervision. USSG§ 7B1.5, p.s.
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Card
within the guideline range in light of the cumulative effect of his
supervised release violations.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Card does not dispute that his imprisonment term was within the max-
imum imposable upon revocation.

                    3
