Court Opinion

ID: 8105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 05:34:28+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:51.945976
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                        _____________________

                             No. 94-60826
                        _____________________

           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Plaintiff-Appellee,

           v.

           MOISES ESCAMILLA,

                                Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________

                          December 1, 1995

Before KING, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

     Moises Escamilla appeals the two-year term of imprisonment

imposed by the district court when it revoked his supervised

release.   Escamilla recognizes that this court (together with all

other circuit courts that have addressed the issue) has

consistently held that the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the

Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory and that a court only

need consider them in rendering a decision.     See, e.g., United

States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 92 (5th Cir. 1994).      Escamilla

argues, however, that after the amendment of 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(4) by the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of
1994,1 the statute now requires that a district court sentence a

supervised release violator within the sentencing range

prescribed by the Sentencing Commission's "policy" statements

concerning violations of probation and supervised release, even

though the Sentencing Commission itself states that these policy

statements are not mandatory.   The Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit addressed and rejected this argument in a well-reasoned

opinion by Chief Judge Merritt in United States v. West, 59 F.3d
32 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, No. 95-6370, 1995 WL 625069

(U.S. Nov. 13, 1995).   We too reject this argument for the

reasons set out in West.   Unless and until the Sentencing

Commission issues guidelines for Chapter 7 or changes the policy

statements to guidelines or Congress unequivocally legislates

that the policy statements in Chapter 7 are binding, this court

will not reduce the flexibility of the district courts in

sentencing supervised release violators.

     Escamilla's sentence is hereby AFFIRMED.

     1
          Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1976 (Sept. 13, 1994).

                                 2