United States v. Austin

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: March 9, 1992
• Docket: 91-2262
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

March 9, 1992     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________

No. 91-2262

UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  MICHAEL J. AUSTIN,
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

Before

                              Torruella, Circuit Judge,
                                         _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

____________________

ORDER OF COURT

Entered March  , 1992

This  appeal  presents  one issue  --  whether  the district
          court,  under the  Sentencing  Guidelines, abused  its discretion
          when  it ordered that, as part of appellant's supervised release,
          he  remain  "continuously   employed  for  compensation   to  the
          satisfaction  of his supervising officer throughout the period of
          supervised release. . . . "  Assuming, without  deciding, that we
          have jurisdiction to hear such a guidelines appeal, we  summarily
          affirm the judgment  of the district court because  the merits of
          the appeal do not present a substantial question.  See Local Rule
                                                             ___
          27.1.

               The Sentencing Guidelines specifically provide  for the very
          release  condition that  appellant is  challenging.   U.S.S.G.   
          5B1.4(a) contains a  list of standard conditions  recommended for
          supervised  release.    One  of  these  conditions is  that  "the
          defendant  shall work  regularly at  a  lawful occupation  unless
          excused  by the  probation officer  for  schooling, training,  or

other acceptable reasons.  . . . "     5B1.4(a)(5).   Given this,
          appellant's argument that the continuous employment  condition is
          contrary to the "policies and law explicitly articulated"  by the
          Sentencing Commission is without merit.

               So ordered.
               __________

                                                  By the Court:

                                                  FRANCIS   P.   SCIGLIANO,
          Clerk

By:                      
                                                      _____________________
                                                      Chief Deputy Clerk