United States v. Gary Lee Hartman

57 F.3d 670, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 14489, 1995 WL 351066
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 13, 1995
Docket95-1052
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 57 F.3d 670 (United States v. Gary Lee Hartman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Gary Lee Hartman, 57 F.3d 670, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 14489, 1995 WL 351066 (8th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*671 In November 1994, the district court 1 determined Gary Lee Hartman had violated conditions of the three-year term of supervised release he was serving. The court revoked his release and sentenced him to nine months imprisonment and twenty-seven months supervised release. Hartman appeals, arguing the district court erred in imposing an additional term of supervised release after revocation and imposition of a term of imprisonment. We affirm.

Hartman acknowledges that this court has repeatedly held that a revocation sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) may include imprisonment and supervised release. See, e.g., United States v. Love, 19 F.3d 415, 416-17 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 434, 130 L.Ed.2d 346 (1994); United States v. Schrader, 973 F.2d 623, 625 (8th Cir.1992). We may not overrule another panel’s decision, and the Court has consistently declined to reconsider Schrader en banc. See United States v. Wilson, 37 F.3d 1342, 1343 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam); Love, 19 F.3d at 416.

Hartman also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), which was enacted in 1994 and which expressly allows district courts to impose a revocation sentence consisting of both imprisonment and supervised release, indicates that we previously misinterpreted § 3583(e). We disagree. Our reading of the legislative history of § 3583(h) persuades us that the new legislation was intended to confirm our interpretation of prior law. 2

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

2

. The same argument was rejected by other panels of this Court in unpublished decisions. United States v. Mayer, 53 F.3d 335 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam); United States v. McCauley, No. 94-3133, slip op. at 2 (8th Cir. Dec. 28, 1994) (per curiam), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1834, 131 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Darron Dean
Eighth Circuit, 2000
United States v. Roger Bruce Bugh
112 F.3d 514 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Charles E. St. John
92 F.3d 761 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. James Edward Evans
87 F.3d 1009 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Gaines
910 F. Supp. 434 (N.D. Illinois, 1996)
United States v. Sandoval
First Circuit, 1995

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F.3d 670, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 14489, 1995 WL 351066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gary-lee-hartman-ca8-1995.