United States v. Davis, 103111 FED3, 11-2585
|Opinion Judge:||GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICHARD DAVIS, Appellant|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR., and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 31, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 28, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Action No. 08-cr-00612-003) District Judge: Honorable José L. Linares.
Appellant Richard Davis ("Davis") appeals the District Court's June 2, 2011 Judgment of Conviction, revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve months and one day of imprisonment. Davis argues that the sentence is substantively infirm. Specifically, Davis argues that the District Court abrogated its responsibility by not seeking and implementing an alternative means of punishment, such as an intensive residential outpatient program.
For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court's Judgment.
We write primarily for the benefit of the parties and shall recount only the essential facts. Davis is a convicted felon, initially sentenced by the District Court to thirty months of imprisonment for conspiracy to steal and convert treasury checks. Within months of his release, Davis failed to comply with the terms of supervised release. Davis failed to meet, at the appointed times, with his probation officer, failed to give his probation officer a new address, and committed a crime leading to his arrest and a plea of guilty.
Following his State court plea, Probation sought the intervention of the District Court by filing a Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision. The Petition specified five violations. Davis pled to Violation 3 — committing another crime (the shoplifting offense). The District Court sentenced Davis to twelve months and one day of incarceration with no further term of supervised release for his Grade C violation. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and § 3583(e)(3), to determine whether to revoke a sentence of supervised release. See United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 851 (3d Cir. 2006).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP