Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06093/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Patrick Cohoon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES PATRICK COHOON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FIL~D 

United States ~t?f Appeals Tenth C1rcU1t 

FEB 19 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6093 

(Probation Transfer #111-P) 

(W . D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and SPARR, District 

Judge.** 

Defendant-appellant Patrick James Cohoon appeals the order of 

the district court sentencing him to twelve months imprisonment 

following violations of the conditions of his supervised release . 

Defendant was sentenced in 1988 to twenty-four months imprisonment 

and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to the 

charge of distribution of a controlled substance. He began h i s 

term of supervised release after serving his prison sentence. In 

February 1991 defendant's supervised release was revoked because 

* 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. 

** The Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-6093 Document: 010110226131 Date Filed: 02/19/1992 Page: 1 
of multiple violations of the conditions of the supervised 

release; the violations included use of controlled substances and 

a conviction for driving while impaired. After a hearing, the 

district court sentenced defendant to twelve months imprisonment. 

The district court specifically rejected a sentence of three to 

nine months set out in u.s.S.G. S 7Bl.4, upon its ruling that 

S 7Bl.4 was merely a policy statement not binding on the court. 

The principal issue on appeal is whether u.s.s.G. § 7Bl.4, a 

policy statement, is binding on a court or merely advisory. This 

has been answered in United States v. Lee, No. 91-6079 (10th Cir. 

_________ , 1992), being issued contemporaneously with the 

instant .:rder and judgment. In Lee, we hold that although the 

policy statements in Chapter 7 must be considered by a court, they 

are advisory and not binding. Our review of the record convinces 

us that the district court did consider the policy statement and 

did not err in imposing a sentence outside the range suggested in 

S 7Bl.4. The twelve month sentence is permissible under 18 u.s.c. 

§ 3583(e), and twelve months is a reasonable sentence under the 

circumstances of this case. See II R. 17-18. 

Al'FIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6093 Document: 010110226131 Date Filed: 02/19/1992 Page: 2