Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03381/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert James Bruning
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL ~ ~ ~ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS tJnita\~~c/.--~,h 'Tc :-:\~n ("'=-nrt':. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

I\PR 2 ~ 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 91-3381 

ROBERT JAMES BRUNING, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D . C. No. 91-30003-01) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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 . 

Mr. Bruning entered a guilty plea to count two of the 

Indictment charging him with escape from a United States 

penitentiary in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 751(a). The district 

court sentenced him to eighteen months imprisonment to run 

consecutively to the sentence then being served. 

Mr. Bruning appeals the sentence asserting 18 u.s.c. 

* 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 Ci r . R. 

36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 91-3381 Document: 010110246209 Date Filed: 04/29/1992 Page: 1
§ 3584(b) 1 mandates a sentencing court to consider the factors set 

forth in 18 u.s.c. § 3553(a) 2 prior to imposing a consecutive 

sentence. Mr. Bruning asserts the sentencing court failed to do 

this and asks we remand for resentencing. 

United States v. Shewmaker, 936 F.2d 1124 (10th Cir. 1991), 

cert. denied, 112 s. Ct. 884 (1992), is dispositive. In 

Shewmaker, we specifically discussed the tensions existing in 

these statutes and concluded the new sentence must run 

consecutively to the old unless the sentencing court determines 

that a downward departure under the Guidelines is appropriate. 

Id. at 1128 . Mr. Bruning asks that we reconsider this decision. 

A panel of this court does not have that power. United States v. 

Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 710 n.3 (10th Cir. 1990). 

The sentence imposed is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

1 "The court, in determining whether the terms imposed are to 

be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, shall consider 

the factors set forth in section 3553(a)." 18 u.s.c. 

§ 3584(b) (1988). 

2 Section 3553(a) sets forth seven factors the court must 

consider when determining a particular sentence. These factors 

include, but are not limited to, the facts of the offense, the 

need for the sentence, the kinds of sentences available, and the 

Guidelines range . 18 u.s.c. § 3553(a) (1988). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3381 Document: 010110246209 Date Filed: 04/29/1992 Page: 2