Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/91/135/476892/
Timestamp: 2019-06-19 08:47:17
Document Index: 610540312

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 3583', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3582', '§ 994', '§ 3553']

Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Henry H. Dinger, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 91 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 1996) :: Justia
Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Henry H. Dinger, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 91 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 1996)
Submitted June 20, 1996. Decided July 16, 1996
Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong III, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Henry H. Dinger, Jr., appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court did not consider the Revocation Table contained in the Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 7 policy statements, United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (Nov.1994), as required by 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West Supp.1996). We affirm.
In August 1995, Dinger was ten minutes late getting home on one occasion, tested positive for alcohol use on two occasions, and was arrested on state charges of public intoxication, disorderly conduct, obstructing an officer, and destruction of property.* At a hearing in October 1995, Dinger offered explanations for each of his violations. Through counsel he requested a sentence within the revocation range, but he also stated that he needed inpatient treatment for his alcohol problem. The government asked for a two-year sentence for the safety of the community because of Dinger's failure to control his drinking and history of alcohol-related violence. The district court revoked Dinger's supervised release and imposed a sentence of 24 months.
Before revoking a term of supervised release, the district court should consider certain factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 1985 & Supp.1996), one of which is the applicable Chapter 7 policy statements governing the revocation of supervised release terms. See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a) (4) (B), 3583(e). However, the Chapter 7 policy statements are not binding. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). Having considered the relevant factors and the applicable policy statements, the court has the discretion to impose a sentence outside the ranges set out in the Revocation Table. Id.
Dinger contends that the district court's reasons for imposing the maximum term were legally flawed and therefore the court cannot be said to have considered the Chapter 7 policy statements. Dinger points out that rehabilitation or the provision of medical care is not an appropriate reason for imposing a particular sentence under the guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) (1988); 28 U.S.C. § 994(k) (1988). However, both protection of the public and the provision of needed medical care to the defendant are factors which the court is directed to consider under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (2) (B)-(C) before requiring a defendant to serve all or part of his term of supervised release in prison. In sum, we find that the district court properly exercised its discretion in this case.
Dinger pled guilty to destruction of property, resisting arrest, and obstructing an officer. The other charges were dismissed