Case ID: f-appx_192/html/0568-01.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, Appellee, v. Joseph Paul MARSHALL, Appellant.
    No. 05-4007.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 22, 2006.
    Filed: Aug. 25, 2006.
    Mikal G. Hanson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pierre, SD, Michael E. Ridgway, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph Paul Marshall, Littleton, CO, pro se.
    Jana M. Miner, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pierre, SD, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

After Joseph Paul Marshall admitted violating the conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked it and sentenced him to 15 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that this sentence exceeds the legal maximum because he received a 3-year term of supervised release when he was originally sentenced in 1998. We disagree. “For those defendants whose offense of conviction occurred after the 1994 changes [to the supervised release statute], the available supervised release term is not measured by the term initially imposed by the district court, ... but by the term authorized in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) for the offense of conviction, minus the aggregate amount of any revocation terms of imprisonment.” United States v. Palmer, 380 F.3d 395, 398-99 (8th Cir.2004) (en banc). Marshall’s instant revocation sentence, added to his earlier revocation prison term of 12 months, does not exceed the 60-month lawful maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1) and (h).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Charles B. Kommann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.