U.S. v. Hobbs, 92-8380
| Decision Date | 22 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-8380,92-8380 |
| Citation | 981 F.2d 1198 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence J. HOBBS, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Suzanne Hashimi, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas A. Devlin, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Hobbs received a four-month sentence in a halfway house, followed by a three-year probation, for one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Later, Hobbs violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing, the district court resentenced Hobbs to six months' imprisonment, followed by a two-year term of supervised release. Hobbs appeals, arguing that the district court had no authority to include a supervised release period after the revocation of probation.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2), if a defendant violates a probation condition, the district court may revoke probation and "impose any other sentence that was available under subchapter A [18 U.S.C. §§ 3551-59] at the time of the initial sentencing." In turn, 18 U.S.C. § 3551(b)(3) provides that a defendant may be sentenced to "a term of imprisonment as authorized by subchapter D [§§ 3581-86]." And Subchapter D, § 3583(a) says that the court "may include as part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment." So, district courts are authorized to impose a period of supervised release as a consequence of probation revocation.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Harrison, Crim. No. 90-393(02) (CRR).
...that a period of three years of Supervised Release is proper here to fulfill the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553. See United States v. Hobbs, 981 F.2d 1198 (11th Cir.1993). In Hobbs, the court specifically recognized that district courts were authorized to impose a period of Supervised Release......
-
U.S. v. Mitsven, 05-12647.
...courts are authorized to impose a period of supervised release as a consequence of probation revocation." United States v. Hobbs, 981 F.2d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir.1993). In the present case, Mitsven admitted the allegations contained in the petition to revoke probation, which included the alle......
-
U.S. v. Bryant
...United States v. McCullough, 46 F.3d 400, 402 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2597 (1995) (same); United States v. Hobbs, 981 F.2d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 103 (1993) Thus, because we find no non-frivolous issue which warrants review on appeal, we GRANT co......
-
U.S. v. Wesley, 95-5341
...States v. McCullough, 46 F.3d 400 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1151, 115 S.Ct. 2597, 132 L.Ed.2d 844 (1995); States v. Hobbs, 981 F.2d 1198 (11th Cir.) (per curiam ), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 832, 114 S.Ct. 103, 126 L.Ed.2d 69 (1993); United States v. Harrison, 815 F.Supp. 494 Revocatio......