US v. Whitten
Case Date: 12/22/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1686
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1686 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. PAUL HARTLEY WHITTEN, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Joseph J. Mazza on brief for appellant. _______________ Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark Terison, ________________ _______________ Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Affirmance Pursuant to Local Rule 27.1. for appellee. ____________________ December 18, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Paul Hartley Whitten appeals from a ___________ sentence imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised release. Whitten concedes that the imposition of an additional term of supervised release was within the district court's authority under United States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292, _____________ ______ 301 (1st Cir. 1993). Notwithstanding Whitten's arguments of legislative history and statutory construction, w e a r e without authority to overrule another panel on this issue. See United States v. Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446 (1st Cir. 1991). ___ ______________ _____ In any event, we are not persuaded that there is reason to reconsider our holding in O'Neil. We reject Whitten's ______ argument that the rule of lenity properly comes into play here. See id. at 301, n.10. ___ ___ Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ |