UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 97-4824

TYRONE KRESIMIR HEAGGANS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-36-V)

Submitted: March 10, 1998

Decided: April 8, 1998

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Kresimir Heaggans pled guilty to bank larceny and was
sentenced to a term of three years probation in 1996. After a series
of probation violations, the district court revoked Heaggans' proba-
tion and sentenced him to twenty-four months imprisonment. Heag-
gans contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing
a prison term for probation violation which exceeded the sentencing
range of four to ten months set out in the Chapter 7 policy statements.
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (1995). We
affirm.

Under current law, if a defendant violates the conditions of his pro-
bation, the court may continue him on probation or"revoke the sen-
tence of probation and resentence the defendant under subchapter A."
See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3565(a)(2) (West Supp. 1997). Before subsection
(a)(2) was amended in 1994, when a sentence of probation imposed
under the sentencing guidelines was revoked, the district court was
"limited at resentencing to a sentence that was available at the time
of the original sentence." United States v. Alli, 929 F.2d 995, 997 (4th
Cir. 1991). The parties do not contest the district court's conclusion
that Heaggans' guideline range at his original sentencing was four to
ten months.*

After the 1994 amendment, we held that the "amended provision
plainly permits a district court to begin the sentencing process anew
and to impose any sentence that satisfies statutory and guideline
requirements." United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 (4th Cir.
1997). Heaggans argues that the district court abused its discretion in
sentencing him in excess of the four-to-ten-month range prescribed
under USSG § 7B1.4. However, the Chapter 7 policy statements are
_________________________________________________________________
*The court erroneously concluded that a criminal history category of
two and an offense level of seven yields a guideline range of four to ten
months imprisonment. The Guidelines clearly provide that the appropri-
ate range is two to eight months. See USSG ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing
table). Because this error is irrelevant given our disposition of this
appeal, it is harmless.

                    2
merely advisory. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-42 (4th
Cir. 1995). The district court concluded that a longer sentence of
imprisonment was necessary to give Heaggans an opportunity to
overcome his drug addiction. We find that the court did not abuse its
discretion.

We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
