IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30913
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VIRGIL A. HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CR-60015
- - - - - - - - - -
April 30, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Virgil A. Harris appeals from the district court’s revocation
of his supervised release and imposition of a fourteen-month
sentence. He argues that the district court abused its discretion
in revoking his supervised release because the decision was not
supported by the evidence, the court failed to consider his medical
condition as a mitigating circumstance, the court was biased
against him, and the sentence imposed was unreasonable. He also
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the
revocation hearing. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in revoking Harris’s supervised release. See United States v.
McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct.
264 (1995). Further, the record shows that the court implicitly
considered Harris’s alleged injuries and he has not demonstrated
that the court was biased against him in any way. Neither was the
fourteen-month sentence imposed in violation of law or plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 919, 920
(5th Cir. 1994). Finally, the court declines to address Harris’s
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, although without
prejudice to Harris’s right to raise the issue in a 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED, Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and
his Motion for Immediate Release is DENIED.