Case ID: f2d_981/html/1198-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence J. HOBBS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 92-8380
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 22, 1993.
    Suzanne Hashimi, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for defendant-appellant.
    
      Thomas A. Devlin, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge,' EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Clarence Hobbs received a four-month sentence in a halfway house, followed by a three-year probation, for one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Later, Hobbs violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing, the district court resen-tenced Hobbs to six months’ imprisonment, followed by a two-year term of supervised release. Hobbs appeals, arguing that the district court had no authority to include a supervised release period after the revocation of probation.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2), if a defendant violates a probation condition, the district court may revoke probation and “impose any other sentence that was available under subchapter A [18 U.S.C. §§ 3551-59] at the time of the initial sentencing.” In turn, 18 U.S.C. § 3551(b)(3) provides that a defendant may be sentenced to “a term of imprisonment as authorized by subchapter D [§§ 3581-86].” And Subchapter D, § 3583(a) says that the court “may include as part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment.” So, district courts are authorized to impose a period of supervised release as a consequence of probation revocation.

AFFIRMED.