
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1816                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                   DAVID J. JONES,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Neal K. Stillman on brief for appellant            ________________            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States Attorney, Margaret D.  McGaughey,            ________________                           ______________________        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  and   Jonathan  A.  Toof,  Assistant  U.S.                                          __________________        Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  December 27, 1996                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and                 ___________            record,  we   find   no  merit   in   defendant's   appellate            contentions.                   First,   the  imposition   of  an  additional   term  of            supervised release was within the district court's authority,            see  United  States v.  O'Neil, 11  F.3d  292, 301  (1st Cir.            ___  ______________     ______            1993), and so  the district court did not  err in refusing to            vacate that  term.  We find no reason to depart here from the            holding in O'Neil.                         ______                 Second,  defendant was  not entitled  to credit  for his            home detention,  see United States v.  Reyes-Mercado, 22 F.3d                             ___ _____________     _____________            363,  367-68 (1st Cir. 1994),  and so the  district court did            not  err in refusing to  modify the sentence  to include such            credit.                   Because the merits of this appeal are easily resolved in            the government's  favor, we  do not address  the government's            objections  regarding  procedural  waiver and  jurisdictional            defects in the district court and this court.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
