The district court’s sentencing of defendant-appellant Gregory L. Martin is before this court for the third time. . Martin was convicted of arson involving a building used in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f). Under section 844(i), Martin сould be sentenced by the district court to imprisonment for any term of years or, if the jury in its discretion so direсted, to the death penalty or to imprisonment for life.
1
The jury did not recommend life imprisonment or the death penalty in Martin’s case, and he
On remand, the district court sentenсed Martin to a term of thirty years, which, according to the district court’s calculations, would result in a net sentence, assuming Martin earned his “goodtime” credit, of 25.5 years. Although this “net sentence” fell within Martin’s life expectancy of 25.9 years, the sentence imposed likely would have deprived Martin of the benefit of any good-time credit he might earn.
United States v. Martin,
On remand for the second time, the district court sentenced Martin to a term of twenty-five years, to be followed by five years of supervised release, a sentence which would result in Martin’s being incarcerated for .9 years less than his estimated life expectancy. This sentenсe is the basis of the instant appeal, in which Martin contends that the district court abused its discretion by sentеncing him to a term that was not “significantly less severe than a sentence of life imprisonment.” There is, howеver, no such requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 34 and this court in vacating Martin’s original sentence did not suggest otherwise. We held only that the defendant’s life expectancy acted as an upper limit that constrained the district court’s otherwise broad discretion to sentence a defendant to “any term of years.”
See Martin,
Further attempts to define precisely at what pоint a term of years becomes a life sentence, in addition to being an encroachment on the authority of the district court, are also of limited utility. Estimated life expectancy is just that — an estimate. The reality is that some persons live beyond their life expectancies while others do not. To hold that a defendant’s sentence must be a certain number of years, or months less than his life expectancy would place unwarranted emphasis on a number that is itself only a rough approximation. The purрose of referring to these tables is merely to invalidate those sentences that are of such a duration that, given the age of the defendant, they are clearly the equivalent of a sentencе of life imprisonment. Martin’s original sentence of fifty years is an example.
See Martin,
Martin’s current sentence will rеsult in his being in custody for .9 years less than his estimated life expectancy. As of sentencing, he had accumulated two years worth of credit toward his sentence for time served, making his sentence 2.9 years less than his lifе expectancy. Because he is sentenced to a term of years, not a life sentencе, he is also eligible for “good-time” credit. This sentence cannot be said to be the equivalent of life sentence, under which Martin would have no possibility of release, and is therefore within the statutory authоrity of the district court. The judgment of the district court sentencing Martin to twenty-five years, to be followed by five yеars of supervised release, is therefore Affirmed.
Notes
. Martin was sentenced under the pre-1994 version of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), whiсh provided that a person convicted of destroying a building by fire where death results “shall be liable for any term of years, or to the death penalty, or to life imprisonment as provided in section 34 of this title.” The pre-1994 version of § 34, in turn, provided that: “Whoever is convicted of any crime prohibited by this chapter, whiсh has resulted in the death of any person, shall be subjected also to the death penalty or to imprisonment for life, if the jury in its discretion so direct....”