Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01379/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01379-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Edgar Guthrie
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 04-1379

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Clarence Edgar Guthrie,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

[Unpublished]

________________

Submitted: September 13, 2004 

 Filed: October 13, 2004

________________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

 Clarence Edgar Guthrie appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

revoking his supervised release. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

Appellate Case: 04-1379 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2004 Entry ID: 1821031 
2

A petition for warrant is a pleading by which the government initiates

revocation proceedings.

2

In March 1997, Guthrie pleaded guilty to three federal drug charges, the most

serious of which was attempting to possess with intent to distribute approximately

453 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, a Class B felony, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii)

(1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(2). Guthrie was sentenced to 76 months in prison and

4 years of supervised release. He commenced supervised release on March 1, 2002.

While on supervised release, Guthrie pleaded guilty to several state drug charges in

Arkansas and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. In January 2004, the

Government sought revocation of Guthrie’s supervised release. The district court

found Guthrie violated the conditions of his supervised release, revoked his

supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison, to be served

consecutively to his Arkansas state sentence. Guthrie argues that the district court

abused its discretion in revoking his supervised release and in imposing a 24-month

consecutive sentence.

After carefully reviewing the record, we reject Guthrie’s arguments on appeal.

First, the district court’s revocation of Guthrie’s supervised release was not an abuse

of discretion because Guthrie admitted the allegations in the Government’s petition

for warrant.2

 See United States v. Caffey, 351 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).

Second, the sentence imposed by the district court was not an abuse of

discretion. The 24-month sentence does not exceed the 3-year maximum prison

sentence authorized upon revocation of supervised release associated with a Class B

felony conviction. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In addition, although the policy

statements in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines are not binding on the district

court, see United States v. Holmes, 283 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing United

States v. Brown, 203 F.3d 557, 558 (8th Cir. 2000)), the 24-month sentence is within

Appellate Case: 04-1379 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2004 Entry ID: 1821031 
3

the recommended Guidelines range. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4,

p.s. (2003).

Finally, we find nothing in the record to indicate that the district court abused

its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United

States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 512 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that under § 3584(a),

upon revocation of supervised release, the decision to impose a consecutive or

concurrent sentence lies within “the sound discretion of the district court ”); USSG

§ 7B1.3(f), p.s.

For these reasons, we affirm, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1379 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/13/2004 Entry ID: 1821031