UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                  No. 97-4037

MATT HORVATH,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-91-76)

Submitted: November 6, 1997

Decided: November 24, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William C. Gallagher, CASSIDY, MYERS, COGAN, VOEGELIN &
TENNANT, L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William
D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Matt Horvath appeals from the district court's order revoking his
supervised release and imposing an additional term of imprisonment.
We affirm.

During the final six months of Horvath's supervision, his probation
officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release, alleging that
Horvath had possessed marijuana, based on three positive urinalyses.
After a hearing on the probation officer's motion, at which Horvath
did not dispute the marijuana possession, the district court found by
a preponderance of the evidence that Horvath violated the conditions
of his supervised release. The court revoked Horvath's supervised
release and sentenced him to a four-month term of imprisonment.

On appeal, Horvath challenges his sentence, contending that the
court erred by not sentencing him to some type of alternative sen-
tence, such as community confinement, intermittent confinement, or
home detention. We reject Horvath's claim that the court had insuffi-
cient reason for sentencing him to prison. The court, in imposing sen-
tence, noted that Horvath's violations did not entitle him to lenient
treatment simply because they took place towards the end of his
supervision period. In addition, the court took into consideration Hor-
vath's arguments and imposed a sentence at the lowest end of the
applicable guideline range. See 18 U.S.C.§ 3583(g) (1994) (impris-
onment is mandatory when supervision is revoked for possession of
controlled substance).

Accordingly, we affirm Horvath's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2
