Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Barker, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's amended judgment imposing an 18-month sentence for Eric Barker that is to run consecutively to another federal sentence. The court found that the district court understood it had discretion in determining whether the sentence should run consecutively or concurrently, and was not bound by the policy statement in USSG §7B1.3(f). As the record showed the district court knew it had discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence, the appellate court affirmed the amended judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-04-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-4780

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's amended judgment imposing an 18-month sentence for Eric Barker that is to run consecutively to another federal sentence. The court found that the district court understood it had discretion in determining whether the sentence should run consecutively or concurrently, and was not bound by the policy statement in USSG §7B1.3(f). As the record showed the district court knew it had discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence, the appellate court affirmed the amended judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views3 pages

    United States v. Barker, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's amended judgment imposing an 18-month sentence for Eric Barker that is to run consecutively to another federal sentence. The court found that the district court understood it had discretion in determining whether the sentence should run consecutively or concurrently, and was not bound by the policy statement in USSG §7B1.3(f). As the record showed the district court knew it had discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence, the appellate court affirmed the amended judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-4780

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ERIC SCOTT BARKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
    Irene M. Keeley,
    District Judge. (1:04-cr-00068-IMK-1)

    Submitted:

    April 8, 2009

    Decided:

    April 20, 2009

    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West


    Virginia, for Appellant.
    Sharon L. Potter, United States
    Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Eric Scott Barker appeals the district courts amended
    judgment imposing an eighteen-month sentence for violating the
    terms of his supervised release that is to run consecutively to
    another federal sentence.

    Barker claims the court misunderstood

    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 7B1.3(f) (policy statement)


    to require the court to impose a consecutive sentence instead of
    a concurrent one.

    We find no error and affirm.

    In United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 n.9


    (4th Cir. 1995), this court stated that the Chapter Seven policy
    statements concerning revocation of supervised release are not
    mandatory.

    See also United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409

    F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir. 2005) (despite seemingly mandatory


    language,

    USSG

    statement).

    7B1.3(f)

    is

    merely

    an

    advisory

    policy

    We find the record clearly shows that when the

    district court entered the amended judgment and reimposed the


    consecutive

    eighteen-month

    sentence

    it

    knew

    it

    had

    the

    discretion to make the determination as to how the sentence was


    to run in relation to the other federal sentence and it was not
    bound by USSG 7B1.3(f).
    Accordingly,
    judgment.
    legal

    we

    affirm

    the

    district

    courts

    amended

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like