UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 99-4748

JAMES WALI MUHAMMAD,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 99-4755

JAMES WALI MUHAMMAD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(CR-95-42, CR-97-16)

Submitted: June 30, 2000

Decided: July 19, 2000

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edwin C. Walker, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gor-
don, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Assis-
tant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

James Wali Muhammad, formerly known as James Collins, appeals
the district court's orders revoking his concurrent terms of supervised
release and imposing two consecutive sentences of fourteen months
each. Muhammad raises two issues on appeal: (1) the district court
erred by failing to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b)(1994); and (2)
the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) (1994) by failing to
state its reasons for the sentences imposed. Because Muhammad
failed to object to either of his sentences or the manner in which they
were imposed, we review his claims for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993).

Muhammad first contends that the district court erred by not dem-
onstrating on the record that it considered the statutory factors man-
dated by § 3584(b). Unless some contrary indication exists, this court
presumes in non-departure cases that a district court properly consid-
ered the pertinent statutory factors. See United States v. Johnson, 138
F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Davis, 53
F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). Because Muhammad's sentences
involved no departures, this presumption applies unless contrary indi-
cations exist. Here, the record does not reveal any such indications.
Thus, we find that the district court's failure to expressly state its con-
sideration of the factors mandated by § 3584(b) does not constitute
plain error.

Muhammad next contends that the district court violated § 3553(c)
by failing to state its reasons for imposing consecutive rather than

                     2
concurrent sentences. Under § 3553(c), a sentencing court must state
in open court the reasons for imposing a particular sentence. This
court has previously reserved its opinion on what obligations
§ 3553(c) imposes on district courts and how district courts can com-
ply with these obligations. See Johnson, 138 F.3d at 120 n.7. Never-
theless, even if the district court's failure to fully explain its reason
for imposing consecutive sentences constituted an error that is plain,
the failure did not prejudice Muhammad's substantial rights because
it did not affect the outcome of the proceedings. See Olano, 507 U.S.
at 734-35. Moreover, the alleged error does not seriously affect the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
at 735-36. Therefore, we find that the district court did not commit
plain error warranting correction.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3
