24 F.3d 1544

24 F.3d 1544

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee,
Joseph B. JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-6179.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 1994.
Decided June 1, 1994.

Stuart J. Canale, Asst. U.S. Atty., Memphis, TN (briefed), for plaintiff-appellee.

Robert C. Brooks, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Memphis, TN (briefed), for defendant-appellant.

Before: RYAN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; and KRUPANSKY, Senior Circuit Judge.

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge.


Defendant, Joseph Jones, contends in this appeal that the district court erred when it sentenced him to a term of supervised release in connection with his violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c), carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the firearms charge and the district court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.


Defendant correctly points out that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) does not explicitly provide for a term of supervised release.


However, possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime is punishable by imprisonment for five years, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1). Any offense punishable by imprisonment for five to ten years is classified as a Class D felony. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3559(a)(4). A district court is authorized to include in a sentence for a Class D felony a term of supervised release after imprisonment for not more than three years. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(a), (b)(2).


Several of our sister circuits have concluded that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(a) authorizes a district court to impose a term of supervised release as part of the sentence for violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). United States v. Watkins, 14 F.3d 414, 415 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Allison, 986 F.2d 896, 897 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Maxwell, 966 F.2d 545, 550 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —-, 113 S.Ct. 826, 121 L.Ed.2d 697 (1992); United States v. Robertson, 901 F.2d 733, 735 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 962, 111 S.Ct. 395, 112 L.Ed.2d 405 (1990).


Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.