
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1686                                             UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                PAUL HARTLEY WHITTEN,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]                                          ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Joseph J. Mazza on brief for appellant.            _______________            Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark Terison,            ________________                              _______________        Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Affirmance        Pursuant to Local Rule 27.1. for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  December 18, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.  Paul  Hartley Whitten appeals  from a                      ___________            sentence  imposed upon  revocation of  a  term of  supervised            release.     Whitten  concedes  that  the  imposition  of  an            additional term of supervised release was within the district            court's authority under United States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292,                                    _____________    ______            301  (1st Cir. 1993).  Notwithstanding Whitten's arguments of            legislative history and statutory construction, w e     a r e            without  authority to overrule  another panel on  this issue.            See United  States v. Wogan,  938 F.2d 1446 (1st  Cir. 1991).            ___ ______________    _____            In any  event, we are not  persuaded that there  is reason to            reconsider  our holding  in  O'Neil.    We  reject  Whitten's                                         ______            argument  that the  rule of  lenity properly comes  into play            here. See id. at 301, n.10.                  ___ ___                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___
