___________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Joel S. Trilling, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark
T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
David Eugene Crawford appeals his conviction and sentence fol-
lowing his plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
dis-
tribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. S 846 (1994). We affirm
pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. See Columbus-American
Dis-
covery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 291, 304 (4th
Cir.
2000).
Crawford contends that the district court failed to establish a
fac-
tual basis for his plea, the Government breached the plea
agreement,
and the district court erred in attributing more than five
kilograms of
drugs to Crawford. Crawford previously presented each of these
argu-
ments to the court in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. S
2255.
See United States v. Crawford, No. 97-7138 (4th Cir. Sept. 3,
1998)
(per curiam) (unpublished). Because this Court previously
considered
these arguments on the merits and none of the exceptions
enumerated
in United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 526 U.S. 1146 (1999), apply, we affirm the district
court's
order of judgment and conviction.
AFFIRMED
2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4774
DEVIN TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CR-98-454)
Submitted: May 11, 2000
Decided: May 19, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Thanos Kanellakos, THANOS KANELLAKOS, P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States
Attorney,
Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Mary-
land, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Devin Taylor appeals his 262-month sentence based upon a guilty
plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute
heroin in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. S 846 (West 1999). Taylor con-
tends that the sentencing court erred in finding he was a career
offender based upon his prior state court conviction for escape
from
custody. Taylor argues this prior state conviction was not a
"crime of
violence" under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual S 4B1.2 (1998).
Because Taylor's sentence fell within the two overlapping, dis-
puted guidelines ranges and because the court expressly announced
the sentence it imposed would have been the same under either
guide-
lines range, review of the issue presented by Taylor is
unnecessary.
See United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 432-33 (4th Cir. 1989)
(quoting United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925, 931 (2d Cir.
1988)).
Accordingly, we affirm Taylor's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4880
PAUL DAVID HOUSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CR-96-174-BR)
Submitted: May 11, 2000
Decided: May 19, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, 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:
Paul David House appeals the district court's revocation of his
supervised release term and probation sentence, and its
consecutive
sentences based on House's admitted violations of the conditions
of
his supervised release and probation. House raises three issues
on
appeal: (1) the district court erred in imposing consecutive
sentences;
(2) the district judge failed to comply with the provisions of 18
U.S.C.
S 3584(b); and (3) the district court violated 18 U.S.C. S
3553(c), by
failing to state its reasons for the sentence imposed. Because
House
failed to object to the sentence or the manner in which it was
imposed, we review his claims for plain error. See United States
v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court made
find-
ings of fact regarding each violation of supervised release and
proba-
tion, and that it considered the applicable guidelines
provisions,* as
well as House's recidivist tendencies in imposing sentence.
Accord-
ingly, we find that the district court was well within its
discretion to
impose consecutive sentences on House's violations of his terms
of
supervised release and probation, see United States v. Johnson,
138
F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998), and further find that there was no
plain
error in the district court's compliance with the applicable
statutory
provisions. See id.; United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642
(4th Cir.
1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
Court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*See Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-7