
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1505                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                    JOHN A. FUSCO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Randy Olsen on brief for appellant.            ___________            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret  E. Curran            ___________________                            ___________________        and Charles A. Tamuleviz, Assistant United States Attorneys, on  brief            ____________________        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   December 1, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  Upon careful review, we reject appellant's                 ___________            contention  that,  in   sentencing  him   on  revocation   of            probation,   the  district  court  was  bound by  a  downward            departure  granted  during appellant's  original  sentencing.            The plain  language of the  applicable statute,  18 U.S.C.               3565(a)(2), does  not support  that contention.   See  United                                                              ___  ______            States v. Plunkett, 94 F.3d  517, 519 (9th Cir. 1996); United            ______    ________                                     ______            States  v. Redmond,  69  F.3d 979,  981-82  (9th Cir.  1995).            ______     _______            Appellant's reliance on United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S.                                    _____________    __________            39, 57 n.15 (1994), is misplaced.  See United States v. Byrd,                                               ___ _____________    ____            116 F.3d 770, 774 (5th Cir. 1997).                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
