UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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 § 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, 

, 432-33 (4th Cir. 1989)
(quoting United States v. Bermingham, 

, 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