UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 95-5591

LETARCHA D. MCGHEE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.
(CR-93-117-F)

Submitted: January 16, 1996

Decided: May 15, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HALL and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gordon Widenhouse, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States
Attorney, David J. Cortes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Letarcha McGhee appeals the revocation of her supervised release
and the imposition of an eleven-month prison sentence. Finding no
error, we affirm.

McGhee was found guilty of three counts of forgery and received
a sentence of two months in prison and two years supervised release.
When McGhee violated the terms of supervised release, the district
court extended the term another year and ordered her to attend pro-
grams for drug dependency and vocational training. When McGhee
again violated the terms of supervised release by using a controlled
substance and failing to participate in a drug treatment program, the
district court revoked the supervised release and imposed the eleven-
month term of imprisonment. At the revocation hearing, the court pro-
vided the following reason for imprisoning McGhee:

          I think she needs drug abuse treatment or counseling. And
          the only question in my mind is how long it's going to take
          to get that counseling. . . . And I think she probably needs
          the 11 months, as opposed to the five, to get the assistance.
          In other words, it might be in her best interest, individually,
          if she's incarcerated for the longest period possible, in order
          that she can get drug abuse treatment, so that hopefully that
          she's in some sort of control of herself when she gets out.
          I mean . . . it's apparent that notwithstanding her first effort
          which went over a period of time, that she's having diffi-
          culty in dropping the drug habit.

McGhee claims the district court improperly considered her need
for rehabilitation when it revoked the supervised release and deter-
mined her length of imprisonment. Her appeal is subject to the plain
error standard of review, as she failed to raise the alleged error below.
See United States v. Olano, 

(1993).

                     2
The district court did not err by considering McGhee's need for
rehabilitation. The statute governing the imposition and revocation of
rehabilitation expressly permits consideration of a defendant's need
for rehabilitation. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583 (West Supp. 1995). Section
3583(e) directs the court to consider the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 1995), which include the defendant's
need for "educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment." Thus, the express language of § 3583 allowed
the district court to consider McGhee's need for rehabilitation in
revoking the supervised release and determining the length of impris-
onment. See also United States v. Anderson, 

(2d Cir.
1994); United States v. Giddings, 

(5th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 

(U.S. Mar 6, 1995) (No. 94-
7897).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3