UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4335

CARROLL SIMPKINS, III,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville.
W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(CR-92-60)

Submitted: September 8, 1999

Decided: September 28, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carroll Simpkins III, appeals the thirty-six-month prison sentence
the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. Simp-
kins asserts that the sentence was unreasonable because it exceeded
the eighteen-to-twenty-four month sentence suggested under U.S.
SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 7B1.4, p.s. (1998), he was punished
for the underlying conduct with a ninety-six-month sentence, and his
rehabilitative efforts warranted a sentence within the guideline range.
Simpkins also claims that the court failed to consider the factors in
18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 1999). We affirm.

After a thorough review of the record--including the nature and
extent of Simpkins' supervised release violations, the probation offi-
cer's amended motion for revocation, the worksheet notifying the dis-
trict court of the revocation range recommended in Chapter 7, and the
arguments presented before the district court--we reject Simpkins'
argument and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in sentencing him to the thirty-six-month statutory maximum
sentence. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995)
(providing standard of review). We also find that the district court
properly considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a). See id. ("A
court need not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its
consideration of a legal issue. It is sufficient if . . . the district court
rules on issues that have been fully presented for determination. Con-
sideration is implicit in the court's ultimate ruling.").

Accordingly, we affirm Simpkins' sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2
