Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02959/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02959-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Gary
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2959

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa

Jerry Gary, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2004

Filed: August 18, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Gary appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for the

Northern District of Iowa upon revocation of his supervised release. The district

court sentenced Gary to 24 months imprisonment and 1 year supervised release. For

reversal, Gary argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him

above the suggested Guidelines range so that he could complete the Bureau of Prisons

Appellate Case: 03-2959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2004 Entry ID: 1800781 
-2-

(BOP) drug-treatment program and that the district court improperly delegated its

authority to the BOP to decide whether Gary will be provided drug treatment in

prison. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Upon careful review, we reject Gary’s arguments. The length of his sentence

was not an abuse of discretion, because the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the

Guidelines are not binding on the district court, see United States v. Touche, 323 F.3d

1105, 1107 (8th Cir. 2003), and the court based its decision upon relevant sentencing

factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cf. United States v. Shaw, 180 F.3d 920, 923 (8th

Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (revocation sentence of 24 months imprisonment and 3 years

supervised release, which exceeded suggested Guidelines range, was not abuse of

discretion where defendant repeatedly violated terms of supervision, and court

desired that defendant receive long-term intensive treatment for drug and alcohol

abuse and mental health treatment in highly structured environment). The district

court did not improperly delegate its authority because the BOP has sole authority to

determine which prisoners will participate in the drug-treatment program. See United

States v. Jackson, 70 F.3d 874, 877-78 (6th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2004 Entry ID: 1800781