
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2115                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                    LINDA LAMBERT,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]                                          ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________            Philip  P.  Mancini and  Cloutier  &  Briggs, P.A.  on  brief  for            ___________________      _________________________        appellant.            Jay  P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney,  George T.  Dilworth,            __________________                            ___________________        Assistant U.S.  Attorney, and  Margaret D.  McGaughey, Assistant  U.S.                                       ______________________        Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  February 26, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Appellant Linda Lambert  appeals from                      __________            the district court's decision revoking her term of supervised            release and  sentencing her for violating a  condition of her            supervised  release.    Having  concluded  that  the   appeal            presents no  substantial question of  law or fact,  we hereby            summarily  affirm the court's decision under Local Rule 27.1.            For the same  reason, we deny her motion  for release pending            appeal.  See 18 U.S.C.   3143(b)(1)(B).                       ___                      Lambert's primary contention on appeal  is that the            court did not  explicitly consider, apply, or  articulate the            sentencing  factors  set  forth in  18  U.S.C.    3553(a)(1),            (a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(6).  In this circuit, a sentencing            court need not make explicit findings on statutory sentencing            factors, as  long as the  record reveals that the  court made            implicit findings  or otherwise evinced its  consideration of            the  relevant factors.   See, e.g., United  States v. Savoie,                                     ____ ____  ______________    ______            985 F.2d 612,  618 (1st Cir. 1993) (restitution  order).  For            the reasons persuasively stated in the government's brief, we            have  no doubt  that the  district  court gave  the requisite            thought to all applicable statutory sentencing factors.                      Lambert's remaining contentions are also meritless.            First,  in  sentencing  Lambert, the  court  was  required to            consider  applicable  United   States  Sentencing  Commission            policy   statements,  including   statements  pertaining   to            supervised   release   violations.      See   18   U.S.C.                                                        ___                                         -2-            3553(a)(4)(B),  (5).    Second,  as  the  revocation  hearing            transcript makes plain,  the court had no  punitive intent in            revoking Lambert's term of supervised release  and sentencing            her  as  it  did.   Rather,  it  sought  to devise  the  most            effective  means to ensure  her rehabilitation from  the drug            abuse behind her crime of conviction.                        Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                      ____________________________                                         -3-
