Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ollie BROWN, Jr., Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-09
Citations: 142 F. App'x 928
Docket Number: No. 04-2893
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ollie BROWN, Jr., Appellant.
Judges: Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 928–929

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ollie BROWN, Jr., Appellant.
No. 04-2893.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 14, 2005.
Decided: May 9, 2005.
Kevin T. Alexander, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.
Ollie Brown, Jr., Little Rock, AR, pro se.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Ollie Brown, Jr., appeals the revocation by the district court of his term of supervised release and the sentence of ten months' imprisonment that the court imposed upon him for violating the conditions of his release. We affirm.
Mr. Brown challenges the district court's order only on constitutional grounds, arguing that the logic of Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), renders unconstitutional the United States Sentencing Guidelines, including its provisions regarding supervised release. Mr. Brown presses this argument under the assumption that the "guidelines created supervised release." But that assumption is incorrect. Supervised release finds its genesis in statute, not in the guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583.
After the appellant filed his brief, the Supreme Court indeed held the Sentencing Reform Act unconstitutional, but it did not discard the guidelines wholesale. See United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -,---, 125 S.Ct. 738, 758, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Instead, as we noted in United States v. Coleman, the Court "excised from the Sentencing Reform Act only those provisions that made application of the sentencing guidelines mandatory and thus were contrary to the sixth amendment. Among the remaining provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act that the Court recognized as constitutionally valid was the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583." U.S. v. Coleman, 404 F.3d 1103, 1105 (8th Cir.2005) (citing Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764). Mr. Brown, moreover, admitted the facts that provided the basis for the revocation of his supervised release. Mr. Brown's sixth amendment challenge therefore fails.
Affirmed.
. The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.