U.S. v. Hartman, 95-1052
| Citation | 57 F.3d 670 |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1052,95-1052 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gary Lee HARTMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Robert R. Nigh, Jr., Asst. Federal Defender, for appellant.
Steven A. Russell, Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellee.
Before FAGG, MAGILL, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 Sec. 3583(e). We disagree. Our reading of the legislative history of Sec. 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2 The same argument was rejected by other panels of this Court in unpublished decisions.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).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. St. John, 95-3665
...means the term of supervised release as originally imposed by the district court at sentencing); cf. United States v. Hartman, 57 F.3d 670, 671 & n. 2 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (rejecting argument that recent enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) which expressly allows district courts to impos......
-
U.S. v. Evans, 96-1288
...statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), in 1994 to make it clear that "stacking" was permissible. See, e.g., United States v. Hartman, 57 F.3d 670, 671 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam ). Thus the fact that the Fifth Circuit prohibited "stacking" at the time that Evans was originally convicted is besid......
-
U.S. v. Sandoval
...In O'Neil, we already had construed subsection (e)(3) to permit what subsection (h) now grants expressly. Cf. United States v. Hartman, 57 F.3d 670, 671 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (the legislative history of subsection (h) shows that subsection(e)(3) permits both incarceration and supervis......
-
US v. Gaines
...opinion.7 Without any elaboration or any citations to the legislative sources referred to in this opinion, United States v. Hartman, 57 F.3d 670, 671 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam) has said Our reading of the legislative history of § 3583(h) persuades us that the new legislation was intended t......