Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 States Unpublished Opinions May Be Cited Only in Related Cases.united States, Appellee, v. David J. Jones, Defendant, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 107 F.3d 1
Dec. 27, 1996
Neal K. Stillman on brief for appellant
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Jonathan A. Toof, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
D.Me.
AFFIRMED.
Before CYR, STAHL and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we find no merit in defendant's appellate contentions.
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), and so the district court did not err in refusing to vacate that term. We find no reason to depart here from the holding in O'Neil.
Second, defendant was not entitled to credit for his home detention, see United States v. Reyes-Mercado, 22 F.3d 363, 367-68 (1st Cir.1994), and so the district court did not err in refusing to modify the sentence to include such credit.
Because the merits of this appeal are easily resolved in the government's favor, we do not address the government's objections regarding procedural waiver and jurisdictional defects in the district court and this court.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.