24 F.3d 1544

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
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.

1

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.

2

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

3

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).

4

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).

5

Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

Anony mous

Share
Published by
Anony mous
Tags: 24 F.3d 1544

Recent Posts

PERKINS v. HERCULES, 1F. 925 (D. Mass. 1880)

PERKINS and others v. SCHOONER HERCULES. WARREN FOUNDRY & MACHINE COMPANY v. SAME. District Court,…

9 years ago

U.S. v. Chavez-Calderon, 494 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2007)

No. 06-2313. 494 F.3d 1266 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CHAVEZ-CALDERON, a/k/a…

9 years ago

Medianews Group, Inc. v. McCarthey, 494 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2007)

No. 06-4132. 494 F.3d 1254 (2007) MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC.; and Kearns-Tribune, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellees, v. Philip…

9 years ago

Clearone Commu. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins., Pit., PA, 494 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2007)

No. 05-4294. 494 F.3d 1238 (2007) CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Utah corporation, and Edward Dallin…

9 years ago

United States v. Goetzke, 494 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2007)

No. 05-30267. 494 F.3d 1231 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Anthony GOETZKE,…

9 years ago

Outley v. Luke & Associates, Inc. – No. 16-60223 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2016)

JACKIE OUTLEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. LUKE & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR…

9 years ago