[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                ____________________



       No. 96-2199


                                   UNITED STATES,


                                      Appellee,


                                         v.


                                 LAWRENCE MASTELLO,


                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                ____________________



                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


                [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]


                                ____________________


                                       Before


                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.


                                ____________________


            Tina Schneider on brief for appellant.

            Donald  
                   K.  
                       Stern, United States Attorney, and     Kevin  
                                                                     O'Regan,

       Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.



                                ____________________


                                    July 23, 1997

                                ____________________







                 Per Curiam
                          . Upon careful consideration of the briefs and


            record, we conclude that this appeal does not present a


            substantial question.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. 


                 The 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of


            supervised release was within the district court's authority


            under 18 U.S.C. S 3583(e)(3) and was not inconsistent with


            U.S.S.G. S 7B1.4.  See United 
                                          States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292,


            301 n.11 (1st Cir. 1993) (the S 7B1.4 sentencing table is


            advisory, not mandatory). In our view, the district court's


            statement of reasons for the longer sentence, including


            defendant's repeated disobedience, was sufficient and gave


            adequate weight to the guideline provisions.


                 The sentence is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.




























                                         -2-