U.S. v. Butler, 89-4486

• Citation: 895 F.2d 1016
• Decision Date: 21 November 1989
• Docket Number: No. 89-4486,89-4486
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Wayne BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 1016

895 F.2d 1016

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Wayne BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-4486

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1989.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 23, 1990.

Gary M. Parker (court-appointed), Nelson, Hammons & White, Shreveport, La., for defendant-appellant.

William J. Flanagan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Joseph S. Cage, Jr., U.S. Atty., Jack W. Grady, Asst. U.S. Atty., Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, WILLIAMS and DUHE, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Chief Judge:

I.

Michael Wayne Butler, who pled guilty to one count of interstate travel to facilitate unlawful activity, appeals the sentence imposed on him by the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. We affirm.

II.

Michael Wayne Butler and a codefendant traveled from Shreveport, Louisiana, to Fort Worth, Texas, to purchase various precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The two men returned to Louisiana and rented a cabin in Lake Bistineau State Park where Butler began processing the chemicals into methamphetamine. Investigators later discovered in Butler's possession a canister of approximately thirty-eight and one-half pounds of mixture containing methamphetamine.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Butler pleaded guilty to one count of interstate travel to facilitate an unlawful activity. The government in turn dismissed four related counts. The court sentenced Butler to serve a prison term of sixty months, the statutory maximum, to be followed by a two-year period of supervised release. Butler filed a timely notice of appeal.

III.

A. The Statutory Maximum Sentence

Butler argues that the imposition of a period of supervised release where the statutory maximum period of confinement has also been imposed constitutes the imposition of a sentence greater than that authorized by Congress. Butler contends that such a sentence results in cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution and deprives him of his liberty without due process in violation of the fifth amendment. Butler cites no authority for this novel argument, and the relevant statutes reveal this claim's lack of merit.

A party found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1952(a) (1989), the statute to which Butler pleaded guilty, "shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both." Id. Congress has additionally provided that "[t]he court, in imposing a sentence to a term of imprisonment for a felony or a misdemeanor, may include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment...." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583 (1989). Congress developed the supervised release program in order:

[T]o ease the defendant's transition into the community after the service of a long prison term for a particularly serious offense, or to provide rehabilitation to a defendant who has spent a fairly short period in prison for punishment or other purposes but still needs supervision and training programs after release.

H.R.Rep. No. 98-1030, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. 124, reprinted in U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1984, 3182, 3307. The addition of a period of supervised release to a maximum jail sentence does not extend a party's imprisonment; therefore, it cannot create a violation of the maximum prison sentence allowed by statute.

B. Drug Quantity Determination Under the Guidelines

Butler objects to the drug quantity used by the district court in calculating...