Court Opinion

ID: 2963683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:54.601286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:44.718069
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        November 7, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1326 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    DON SANDOVAL,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Don Sandoval on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
            __________________                             ___________________
        and Gerard  B. Sullivan, Assistant  United States Attorneys,  on brief
            ___________________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Defendant Don  Sandoval appeals  from
                      __________

            the  sentence the district court imposed on him following the

            revocation  of  a term  of  supervised  release.   The  court

            sentenced defendant to both a term of imprisonment and a term

            of supervised release.

                      Defendant first argues  that the supervised release

            revocation provision, 18 U.S.C.   3583(e)(3), does not permit

            the imposition of a  term of supervised release and a term of
                                                            ___

            imprisonment.   We rejected  this precise argument  in United
                                                                   ______

            States   v. O'Neil,  11 F.3d  292  (1st Cir.  1993), and  re-
            ______      ______

            affirmed our position in United States v. LaPlante, 28 F.3d 1
                                     _____________    ________

            (1st Cir.  1994) (per  curiam), cert.  denied, 115  S.Ct. 910
                                            _____________

            (1995).   Defendant has not presented  any persuasive reasons

            why we should change this recent statement of the law.

                      Defendant's second argument  on appeal is that  the

            district court violated  the prohibition of the ex post facto
                                                            _____________

            clause by applying   3583(h) to him.   This section was added

            in  1994.  It specifically provides that when revoking a term

            of  supervised release  under subsection  (e)(3),  a district

            court may  include a requirement of  supervised release after

            imprisonment.

                      To fall  within the ex post  facto prohibition, the
                                          ______________

            new  law "must  disadvantage  the offender  affected by  it."

            Miller  v.  Florida,  482  U.S.  423,  430  (1987)  (internal
            ______      _______

            quotations  and  citation omitted).    Assuming the  district

                                         -2-

            court used subsection  (h), defendant was not  disadvantaged.

            In  O'Neil, we  already  had construed  subsection (e)(3)  to
                ______

            permit what subsection (h) now  grants expressly.  Cf. United
                                                               ___ ______

            States  v. Hartman,  57 F.3d  670, 671  (8th Cir.  1995) (per
            ______     _______

            curiam) (the legislative history of subsection (h) shows that

            subsection(e)(3)  permits  both incarceration  and supervised

            release).

                      Based  on  the  foregoing,  the   judgment  of  the

            district court is affirmed.
                              ________

                                         -3-