Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01160/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01160-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Roger Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

UniWd States Cuurt t>f Appeals 1

T{'nth Cir0Jit 

JUN 2 9 1990 

.ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-1160 

JULIAN ROGER SANCHEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 81-CR-145) 

Michael F. Scott of Scott & Barrera, Denver, Colorado, for 

defendant-appellant. 

James P. Moran, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Michael J. Norton, Acting 

United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, 

for plaintiff-appellee. 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-1160 Document: 01019880673 Date Filed: 06/29/1990 Page: 1 
Defendant Julian Roger Sanchez appeals from the district 

court's order revoking his probation and imposing two concurrent 

one-year sentences for his prior conviction on two counts of 

unlawful possession of food stamps in violation of 7 u.s.c. 

§ 2024(b}. On appeal, defendant challenges the timeliness of the 

issuance of the warrant for his probation violation. We affirm. 

Defendant was originally convicted in 1981 and sentenced to 

five years imprisonment. Execution of all but four months of the 

sentence was suspended, with a probationary period of four years 

and eight months to commence upon his release. Defendant was 

released on March 1, 1984; therefore, his probation was to run 

until October 31, 1988. On October 27, 1988, defendant was 

arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute 

marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. §§ 84l(a}(l), 846. As a 

result of this arrest, on October 31, 1988, the last day of 

defendant's probation, the district court ordered a warrant for 

defendant's arrest for probation violation. The warrant, however, 

was not issued until November 2. Thereafter, defendant was 

convicted on the marijuana charge. Consequently, the district 

court revoked defendant's probation on the food stamp conviction. 

Defendant now appeals. 

The only issue on appeal is whether the arrest warrant for 

the probation revocation was timely issued. 18 u.s.c. § 3653 

provides that "[a]t any time within the probation period, or 

within the maximum probation period [of five years] permitted by 

section 3651 of this title, the court for the district ... may 

issue a warrant for [the probationer's] arrest for violation of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1160 Document: 01019880673 Date Filed: 06/29/1990 Page: 2 
probation occurring during the probation period." It is clear 

that defendant's probation violation occurred during his probation 

period. And although the warrant did not issue until two days 

after his four-year-and-eight-month probation had expired, it did 

issue within the statutory maximum probation period of five years.· 

This was sufficient to give the district court jurisdiciton over 

defendant's probation revocation under 18 u.s.c. § 3653 if that 

section applies. Gammarano v. United States, 732 F.2d 273, 277 

(2d Cir. 1984); United States v. Hill, 719 F.2d 1402, 1404 (9th 

Cir. 1983); United States v. O'Quinn, 689 F.2d 1359, 1360-61 (11th 

Cir. 1982); United States v. Blunt, 680 F.2d 1216, 1218-19 (8th 

Cir. 1982); United States v. Swanson, 454 F.2d 1263, 1264-65 (7th 

Cir. 1972). 

Defendant argues that 18 u.s.c. § 3653 is inapplicable 

because it was repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Reform Act 

of 1984, which provides that a warrant for probation revocation 

must issue within the period of probation. 18 u.s.c. § 3565(c). 1 

The Sentencing Reform Act applies, however, only to "offenses" 

committed after November 1, 1987. Pub. L. No. 98-473, 

§ 235(a)(l), 98 Stat. 1837, 2031 (1984), as amended by Sentencing 

Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-182, § 2, 101 Stat. 1266, 1266. 

Defendant contends that the relevant "offense" in this case is the 

possession of marijuana that triggered revocation of his probation 

on the food stamp conviction. But we believe an act triggering 

1 The district court held that even if the new 

applicable, the controlling event is the court's 

warrant, not the actual issuance of the warrant. 

States v. Caulfield, Crim. No. 81-00003 (E.D. Pa. 

on WESTLAW). We need not and do not address that 

-3-

statute is 

order for the 

Accord United 

1986) (available 

issue. 

Appellate Case: 89-1160 Document: 01019880673 Date Filed: 06/29/1990 Page: 3 
revocation of probation is not an "offense'' within the meaning of 

the Sentencing Act. Revocation of probation does not carry its 

own punishment, but merely allows the court to set a new sentence 

for the original conviction. Indeed, many acts that trigger 

revocation of probation carry no criminal sanction at all once 

probation expires. The relevant "offense" in this case, 

defendant's unlawful possession of food stamps, was committed many 

years before the November 1, 1987, effective date of the 

Sentencing Reform Act; therefore, that statute can have no 

application to defendant's probation revocation. See United 

States v. Parker, 881 F.2d 945, 946 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. 

denied, 110 s. Ct. 1141 (1990); Gallardo v. Quinlan, 874 F.2d 186, 

188 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 373 (1989); United States 

v. Burgess, 858 F.2d 1512, 1513-14 (11th Cir. 1988). 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1160 Document: 01019880673 Date Filed: 06/29/1990 Page: 4