[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-2115
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
LINDA LAMBERT,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Philip P. Mancini and Cloutier & Briggs, P.A. on brief for
appellant.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, George T. Dilworth,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, on brief for appellee.
February 26, 1996
Per Curiam. Appellant Linda Lambert appeals from
the district court's decision revoking her term of supervised
release and sentencing her for violating a condition of her
supervised release. Having concluded that the appeal
presents no substantial question of law or fact, we hereby
summarily affirm the court's decision under Local Rule 27.1.
For the same reason, we deny her motion for release pending
appeal. See 18 U.S.C. 3143(b)(1)(B).
Lambert's primary contention on appeal is that the
court did not explicitly consider, apply, or articulate the
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(6). In this circuit, a sentencing
court need not make explicit findings on statutory sentencing
factors, as long as the record reveals that the court made
implicit findings or otherwise evinced its consideration of
the relevant factors. See, e.g., United States v. Savoie,
985 F.2d 612, 618 (1st Cir. 1993) (restitution order). For
the reasons persuasively stated in the government's brief, we
have no doubt that the district court gave the requisite
thought to all applicable statutory sentencing factors.
Lambert's remaining contentions are also meritless.
First, in sentencing Lambert, the court was required to
consider applicable United States Sentencing Commission
policy statements, including statements pertaining to
supervised release violations. See 18 U.S.C.
-2-
3553(a)(4)(B), (5). Second, as the revocation hearing
transcript makes plain, the court had no punitive intent in
revoking Lambert's term of supervised release and sentencing
her as it did. Rather, it sought to devise the most
effective means to ensure her rehabilitation from the drug
abuse behind her crime of conviction.
Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-