Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06317/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06317-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Arthur Miller
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FlLLD Q 

United States Co~rt (?f Appeal. Tenth C1rcu1t 

FEB 19 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

No . 92-6317 

(D.C. No. CR-91-5-R) 

(W. Dist. Okla.) 

JAMES ARTHUR MILLER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

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 James Arthur Miller appeals his sentence following 

a revocation of his supervised release. Mr. Miller had previously 

been sentenced to six months in prison and three years of 

supervised release. While on supervised release, Mr. Miller 

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: 92-6317 Document: 010110175807 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 1 
substance. As a result of that violation, the district court 

sentenced Mr. Miller to a prison term of one year, imposing the 

statutory minimum provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (g ). The court 

further ordered a twenty-five month term of supervised release 

following the new prison term. Mr. Miller contends the district 

court erred in imposing the twelve month prison term under section 

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

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

Further, Mr. Miller 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 one 

year 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. 

Miller's term of imprisonment. Since "the record does not reveal 

whether or not the district court's decision to sentence [Miller] 

to the statutory minimum of twelve months in prison was affected 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6317 Document: 010110175807 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 2 
by the imposition of further supervised release," Rockwell, 1993 

WL 16352 at *5, we remand for reconsideration of the term of 

incarceration to be imposed . 

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

- 3 -

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6317 Document: 010110175807 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-6317 Document: 010110175807 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 4