Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01413/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01413-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allan Bambrick
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 3 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ALLAN BAMBRICK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . ., 

No. 91-1413 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-328-6) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 1 

Defendant Allan Bambrick appeals the denial of his motion 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2255 by which he challenged the court's 

imposition of twenty-four months imprisonment for violation of the 

* 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. 

1 Defendant's motion for oral argument pro se is denied. 

Defendant's motion to file an amended appellate brief is granted. 

Appellate Case: 91-1413 Document: 010110243052 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 1
conditions of his supervised release. Defendant sought reversal 

for resentencing. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to assault of his probation officer, 

a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 that was not separately charged, 

but treated as a Grade B violation of defendant's supervised 

release . 

The policy statement in u.s. s.G. § 7Bl.4 prescribed an eight 

to fourteen month sentencing range for violation of the supervised 

release . The maximum sentence permitted by statute was two years 

imprisonment. See 18 u.s.c . § 3583(e)(3) . The district court 

sentenced defendant to twenty-four months, on the basis that the 

guideline range set out in the policy statement is not binding on 

the court, and that the total of defendant ' s conduct warranted the 

twenty-four month maximum. 

The court correctly observed that the policy statement in 

U.S.S.G. § 7Bl.4 is not binding in the sense that a sentencing 

guideline binds the court. See United States v. Lee, No . 91-6079, 

slip op . at 7 (10th Cir. Feb. 19, 1992) (chapter 7 policy 

statements regarding supervised release are advisory). 

Defendant's principal challenge is that the government, in 

responding to the court's question at sentencing, misrepresented 

the guidelines that would have been applicable had the assault 

been charged as a separate crime; and but for that 

misrepresentation the sentence might have been less. The 

representation was that the guideline range would have been 

thirty-three to sixty-three months imprisonment. Although we 

calculate a possible guideline range of thirty to seventy-eight 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1413 Document: 010110243052 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 2
months, the government's representation was not significantly 

different. We agree with the government that the representation 

was not inaccurate . The facts concerning the assault on the 

probation officer were not disputed by defendant. Defendant's 

probation officer saw defendant in a convenience store and 

attempted to talk to defendant, who had not been reporting to the 

officer properly. When defendant left the store and got into his 

car, the officer followed him and asked for identification. II R. 

Supp. 12-14 . With the door of his car open defendant shifted into 

reverse, caught and dragged the probation officer for a short 

distance before defendant reshi fted to a forward gear and 

accelerated to escape from the officer. A car is considered a 

deadly weapon under these circumstances. See U.S.S.G. S lBl.1, 

comment. (n.l(d)) ("'Dangerous weapon' means an instrument capable 

of inflicting death or serious bodily injury. " ). Assault with a 

deadly weapon, considering defendant's criminal history, would 

justify the guideline reported to the court. See U.S.S.G. 

S 2A2.2(a) (assault); u.s.s.G. s 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) (dangerous 

weapon); u.s.s. G. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(A) (adjustment for bodily injury); 

u.s.s.G. S 3Al.2 (official victim). we do not agree that a case 

relied upon by defendant, Carter v. United States, 231 F.2d 232 

(5th Cir. ), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 984 (1956), requires a contrary 

result. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1413 Document: 010110243052 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 3