Opinion ID: 559931
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentence on Revocation

Text: 7 Oliver next argues that because the sentence imposed on revocation of his supervised release, eighteen months, was longer than the fourteen-month sentence for his underlying conviction, the sentence on revocation was unreasonable. In making this argument, Oliver assumes that the sentencing guidelines applicable to his conviction for possession of stolen mail apply to his sentence on revocation as well. Oliver is incorrect. In fact, there are no binding guidelines addressing the sentence for a violation of a condition of supervised release, only a policy statement about a court's options in such a situation: 8 (a) Upon a finding of a violation of supervised release involving new criminal conduct, other than criminal conduct constituting a petty offense, the court shall revoke supervised release. 9 (b) Upon a finding of a violation of supervised release involving conduct other than conduct under subsection (a), the court may: (1) revoke supervised release; or (2) extend the term of the supervised release and/or modify the conditions of supervised release. 10 U.S.S.G. Sec. 7A1.3, p.s. (Nov.1989). 11 Even though the guidelines do not address what sentence should be imposed on revocation, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583 (1988) does. Section 3583(e)(3) provides that if a defendant is found to have violated the conditions of supervised release, the court may revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision. The district court thus could have sentenced Oliver to a maximum of three years, his term of supervised release. The minimum sentence the district court could have imposed on Oliver was one year: If the defendant is found by the court to be in the possession of a controlled substance, the court shall terminate the term of supervised release and require the defendant to serve in prison not less than one-third of the term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(g). Therefore, the sentence the district court imposed in this case, eighteen months, was reasonable and well within the statutory limits. See also United States v. Smeathers, 930 F.2d 18, 19 (8th Cir.1991) (upholding sentence on revocation of supervised release that was longer than initial sentence).