
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry J. FRANCZAK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4628.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 27, 2001.
    Decided May 7, 2001.
    
      Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, DC, for appellant.
    Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, L. Anna Crawford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit JJ., and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Henry J. Franczak appeals from the district court’s order revoking his probation and imposing an eighteen-month sentence. On appeal, Franczak contends that the district court abused its discretion by not adopting his suggestion to hold the hearing in abeyance pending his placement in a drug treatment facility. The court addressed this concern by recommending that Franczak be incarcerated in a facility with a “full range of drug treatment programs.”

Franczak also challenges the length of the sentence, which exceeded the three-to-nine month range recommended by the probation officer. However, upon finding a probation violation, the district court may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any sentence permitted for the original offense. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3565(a) (West 2000); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 (4th Cir.1997). The sentencing ranges in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines are not binding on the sentencing court. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 (4th Cir.1995). Because the district court considered the relevant factors and imposed a sentence within the ten-year maximum for Franczak’s original offense, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1029(a)(5) (West 2000), we find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order revoking Franczak’s probation and imposing an eighteen-month sentence. Because the appeal has now been decided, we deny, as moot, Franczak’s motion for a stay pending appeal of collection of funds under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Act. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  