U.S. v. Lewis, 92-2586
| Decision Date | 08 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2586,92-2586 |
| Citation | 998 F.2d 497 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger D. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Joseph Hartzler (argued), Office of U.S. Atty., Springfield, IL, for plaintiff-appellee.
Brian T. Otwell (argued), Huntley & Giganti, Springfield, IL, for defendant-appellant.
Before POSNER, FLAUM and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
This case presents the question of whether a district court is bound by policy statements contained in the Sentencing Guidelines. In light of recent Supreme Court precedent, we conclude that a district court must follow policy statements unless they contradict a statute or the Guidelines themselves, and accordingly vacate the defendant's sentence.
On September 19, 1988, Roger Lewis pled guilty to two Class B felonies: distribution of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On February 13, 1989, Lewis was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. At sentencing, the district court recognized the defendant's cocaine and alcohol dependency and recommended he receive substance abuse treatment while incarcerated. The terms of Lewis' supervised release required that he participate in a urinalysis program and a drug treatment program (if necessary), and that he refrain from using any controlled substance and possessing any drug paraphernalia.
Lewis' supervised release began on March 13, 1991, when his prison term ended. While in prison Lewis did receive treatment for his substance abuse problems. In April 1991, Lewis gave his probation officer a letter verifying his employment at a local restaurant; the letter was not genuine. On September 20, 1991, Lewis was arrested for possession of a hypodermic needle and syringe. He failed to report this arrest to his probation officer within the proper time limit. In October 1991, Lewis repeatedly failed to submit required urine samples and to keep appointments for drug abuse evaluation.
Because of the foregoing violations, Lewis' probation officer petitioned the court for an arrest warrant and a rule to show cause why Lewis' supervised release should not be revoked. A hearing was held on November 19, 1991. The government agreed to continue the petition for revocation to allow Lewis to complete an in-patient substance abuse program. Lewis successfully completed the month-long program and moved into a halfway house for recovering addicts. On April 8, 1992, however, Lewis left the halfway house without notifying his probation officer.
On April 10, 1992, Lewis was arrested for theft and the unlawful use of a credit card. Earlier that day, he had been arrested for possession of crack cocaine. On April 14, Lewis was arrested again for possessing crack cocaine. Lewis did not report any of these arrests to his probation officer. Shortly thereafter, a second amended petition for revocation of Lewis' supervised release was filed.
On May 11, 1992, after hearing evidence, the district court concluded that Lewis had violated his supervised release by possessing crack cocaine on two different occasions, by giving false information to his probation officer, by failing to report four arrests to his probation officer, and by failing to notify his probation officer of his change of address when he left the halfway house.
At the June 8, 1992 sentencing hearing, the defendant argued that, under a Sentencing Guideline policy statement, the district court could not sentence him to more than 20 months imprisonment. The government was granted a continuance to research the issue raised by Lewis. On June 22, 1992, a final sentencing hearing was held. The government argued that the policy statement on which Lewis relied was merely advisory and not binding on the district court. The district court agreed and sentenced Lewis to the statutory maximum of 36 months. This timely appeal followed.
Lewis contends that the district court erred by sentencing him to 36 months imprisonment for violating his supervised release. Lewis maintains that proper interpretation of the relevant statutory and Sentencing Guideline provisions yields a sentence of only 20 months, absent a departure. We agree and believe Lewis must be resentenced.
The district court concluded that Lewis had violated his parole by possessing crack cocaine and failing to comply with several other technical conditions of his supervised release. Under the Guidelines, Lewis' possession of cocaine amounts to a Grade B violation; his other conduct constitutes Grade C violations. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2) and (3), p.s. When a defendant has committed more than one grade of violation, the more serious grade controls for purposes of sentencing. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(b), p.s. Thus, Grade B is the applicable violation level which, when combined with Lewis' Criminal History Category of IV, 1 yields a sentence range of 12-18 months imprisonment.
A statute also specifically covers Lewis' situation. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) provides:
If ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Marvin
...policy statements were binding on the sentencing judge unless inconsistent with a guideline or federal statute, see United States v. Lewis, 998 F.2d 497 (7th Cir.1993), since 1993 we have recognized that "[t]he policy Statements in Chapter 7 ... are neither guidelines nor interpretations of......
-
U.S. v. Davis
...in supervised release revocation proceedings, see United States v. Hill, 48 F.3d 228 (7th Cir. 1995), overruling United States v. Lewis, 998 F.2d 497, 498-99 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 91-93 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Sparks, 19 F.3d 1099, 1101 & n. 3 (6th C......
-
Ebbole v. U.S.
...guides to the meaning of the applicable Sentencing Guideline. Stinson, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1917; United States v. Lewis, 998 F.2d 497, 499 (7th Cir.1993).9 Another reason not to apply the amended version of § 3E1.1 retroactively is that, barring any ex post facto concerns, a dist......
-
U.S. v. Mathena
...Stinson cited as support) because the policy statements of Chapter 7 "do not interpret or explain any statute or guideline"). But see Lewis, 998 F.2d at 499 (holding that Stinson compels the conclusion that all policy statements, including those of Chapter 7, are We also reject Mathena's co......
-
Federal Sentencing Guidelines - Andrea Wilson
...United States Levi, 2 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Forrester, 19 F.3d 482 (9th Cir. 1994). But see United States v. Lewis, 998 F.2d 497 (7th Cir. 1993). 232. United States v. Harden, 37 F.3d 595 (11th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Osburn, 955 F.2d 1500, 1503 (11th Cir.),......