USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1811
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN MICHAEL DION,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Stephen M. Dion on brief pro se. _______________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Frederick C. Emery and ________________ ___________________
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for _____________________
appellee.
____________________
April 25, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Stephen Michael Dion appeals from a __________
sentence imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised
release. None of the arguments Dion raises on appeal were
presented to the sentencing court. Having reviewed the
briefs and record, we find no error (much less plain error).
First, the imposition of an additional term of
supervised release was within the district court's authority.
See United States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292, 301 (1st Cir. ___ ______________ ______
1993). Dion has offered no persuasive reasons to reconsider
our holding in O'Neil. ______
Second, there is ample evidence in the record from
which the district court could conclude that Dion has a
history of alcohol abuse. The two new special conditions of
supervised release were clearly directed at addressing this
problem. Cf. United States v. Thurlow, 44 F.3d 46, 47 (1st ___ _____________ _______
Cir.) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion in requiring
defendant to abstain from consuming alcohol in light of
personal history and continuing alcohol abuse), cert. denied, ____________
115 S. Ct. 1987 (1995). We are persuaded that these
conditions are rationally related to the goals of
rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection of the public.
Affirmed. ________
-2-