United States v. Larry Graves, A/K/A Larry GrayesUnited States v. Larry Graves, A/K/A Larry Grayes
Larry Graves appeals from the judgment of the district court
1
imposing an 18-month term of imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release. Graves contends that the district court erred in failing to consider the factors for sentencing set out in
Larry Graves pled guilty to one count of unlawfully possessing stolen mail, in violation of
Graves was released from prison in August 1989 and was assigned to a drug abuse program in October 1989. Between October 1989 and January 1990, Graves failed to report for scheduled drug testing and counseling at the drug abuse center on eight occasions.
There is no dispute that Graves missed scheduled drug tests in violation of the condition of his supervised release. In fact, at the revocation hearing, he admitted reporting to his probation officer in January 1990 that he was again using drugs. After finding that Graves had violated a condition of supervised release, the district court sentenced Graves to an 18-month prison term.
Graves first contends that the district court failed to consider the factors set out in
Graves next contends that the district court improperly applied § 3583(g) 3 in his sentencing without Graves having received notice, as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, of the allegation of possession of a controlled substance while on supervised release. Had the district court applied § 3583(g), the minimum sentence would have been eight months (one-third of the twenty-four month term of supervised release).
Imposition of the 18-month sentence falls squarely within the discretion of the district court. Section 3583(e)(3) authorizes the district court to “revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision, if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person violated a condition of supervised release.... ” Graves was serving a two-year term of supervised release. He admittedly failed to abide by a condition of his supervised release. He was sentenced to less than the two-year maximum penalty.
When the district court imposes a sentence within the statutory limits, this court will not disturb that sentence absent an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Amahia,
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable William L. Hungate, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
.
.
Possession of controlled substances. — If the defendant is found by the court to be in the possession of a controlled substance the court shall terminate the term of supervised release and require the defendant to serve in prison not less than one-third of the term of supervised release.