Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01824/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01824-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Scott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1824

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Anthony Scott, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 30, 2006

Filed: September 5, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While Anthony Scott (Scott) was serving the supervised release portion of his

federal sentence on a bank-robbery conviction, the district court1

 revoked supervised

release and sentenced him to serve 8 months in prison and 24 additional months of

supervised release. Scott appeals, arguing for the first time that the court erred by

imposing additional supervised release because, under the law in effect in the

jurisdiction where he was sentenced when he committed his original offense in May

Appellate Case: 06-1824 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Entry ID: 2085790
2

Scott was sentenced in December 1994, in the Eastern District of Washington,

to 140 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. Jurisdiction over Scott was

later transferred to the Western District of Missouri. 

-2-

1994,2

 a revocation sentence including both imprisonment and additional supervised

release was not permissible.

The district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in imposing a

revocation sentence that included both imprisonment and additional supervised

release, because at the time of Scott’s offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) authorized such

a revocation sentence. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 702, 713 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1824 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Entry ID: 2085790