UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 96-4424
JAMES EDWARD SPENCER, JR., a/k/a
Brother Spencer,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-91-58)

Submitted: April 15, 1997

Decided: April 29, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Monica K. Schwartz,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Spencer, Jr., appeals from the district court's order
sentencing him to twenty-four months imprisonment upon revocation
of his supervised release. He claims that the district court's order vio-
lates the interest of Congress and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the
United States Constitution. We affirm.

Spencer pled guilty in April 1991 to conspiracy to distribute
cocaine base and was sentenced to fifty-seven months imprisonment,
followed by five years of supervised release, which was subsequently
reduced to three years. Spencer's modified term of supervised release
began on May 19, 1995. On January 31, 1996, a jury convicted Spen-
cer of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (1994), and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). For this conviction
Spencer received a sentence of 120 months imprisonment and eight
years of supervised release. Based upon his conviction, the Govern-
ment filed a petition to revoke Spencer's supervised release.*

The district court imposed a consecutive twenty-four-month term
of imprisonment for Spencer's violation of his supervised release.
Spencer appeals, claiming that Congress did not intend for district
courts to impose separate punishments for a supervised release viola-
tion and for the conviction which formed the basis of the violation.
He also maintains that he was subjected to double jeopardy because
the same offense for which he was convicted was the offense forming
the basis for revocation of his supervised release.
_________________________________________________________________
*Two of the conditions of Spencer's supervised release were that he
not commit any crime (federal, state, or local) and that he not illegally
use or possess a controlled substance.

                     2
This court recently addressed an identical situation in United States
v. Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 332
(1996). Because the punishment imposed upon revocation of super-
vised release is considered punishment for the original offense, "the
Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the government from crim-
inally prosecuting and punishing an offense which has formed the
basis for revocation of a term of supervised release." Id. at 363;
accord United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 115 S. Ct. 2289 (1995).

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

                    3
