United States v. Friday

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 97-41181
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WARREN D. FRIDAY,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                        - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. C-94-CR-118-1
                        - - - - - - - - - -
                           June 16, 1998
Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Warren D. Friday, prisoner # 769616, appeals the revocation

of his supervised-release term, which was part of his sentence

for his conviction for possession of marihuana.   The Government’s

motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.   Friday

argues for the first time on appeal that his release date was

incorrectly calculated, and the violations of supervised release

to which he pleaded true occurred after his term of supervised

release had expired.   He contends that the district court

     *
        Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
                          No. 97-41181
                               -2-

therefore lacked jurisdiction to impose on him a ten-month

sentence for the alleged violations of the terms of his release.

     Questions of fact that could have been resolved by the

district court can never be plain error.   United States v. Vital,

68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995).   The determination of release

dates involves factual, not legal, questions.    United States v.

Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir. 1990).     This court need

not address Friday’s claim.   Id.

     This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).    Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is hereby DISMISSED.   5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

     MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON APPEAL DENIED.   APPEAL

DISMISSED.