Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06298/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06298-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alonzo Leon Thomas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL D 

United States Court of Appeal@ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ALONZO LEON THOMAS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 1 9 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-6298 

(D.C. No. CR-89-232-A) 

(W. Dist. Okla .) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, BARRETT, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 {a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Alonzo Leon Thomas appeals his sentence following a 

revocation of his supervised release. Mr. Thomas had previously 

been sentenced to ten months in prison and three years of 

supervised release . While on supervised release, Mr. Thomas 

violated the terms of that release by using a controlled 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit , except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6298 Document: 010110175804 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 1 
substance. As a result of that violation, the district c ourt 

sentenced Mr. Thomas to a prison term of twenty-one months. The 

court further ordered a twenty-five mont h term of supervised 

release following the new prison term. Mr. Thomas contends the 

district court erred in imposing the new prison term under section 

3583(g) for "possession" of a controlled substance, asserting that 

"use" of a controlled substance does not equate with possesion. 

Further, Mr. Thomas argues that the twenty-five months of 

additional supervised release is in excess of the term authorized 

by law. 

We have recently addressed both of these issues in United 

States v. Rockwell, __ F.2d __ , No. 92-6121, 1993 WL 16352 (10th 

Cir. Jan. 29, 1993). In Rockwell, we held that the presence of a 

controlled substance in the body of a person on supervised release 

constitutes possession for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (g ) . 

We also held that a district court may not impose both 

incarceration and further supervised release upon revocation of 

the originally-imposed supervised release. Under this analysis, 

we find no error in the district court's imposition here of a 

twenty-one month sentence for the possession of a controlled 

substance. However, the district court erred by imposing an 

additional twenty- five· months of supervised release at the end of 

Mr . Thomas' term of imprisonment. Since "the record does not 

reveal whether or not the district court's decision to sentence 

[Thomas] was affected by the imposition of further 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6298 Document: 010110175804 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 2 
supervised release," Rockwell, 1993 WL 16352 at *5, we remand f or 

reconsideration of the term of incarceration to be imposed . 

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

- - ------

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6298 Document: 010110175804 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-6298 Document: 010110175804 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 4