United States v. McMillan, 4th Cir. (2000)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. McMillan, 4th Cir. (2000)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JERRY ROGER MCMILLAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4473
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge.
(CR-88-179-P)
Submitted: November 30, 2000
Decided: December 27, 2000
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
Mark P. Foster, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian L.
Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
UNITED STATES v. MCMILLAN
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Roger McMillan appeals the district courts judgment imposing a twenty-four month sentence for his violation of the terms of his
supervised release. McMillan suggests that the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked the discretion to impose a sentence
concurrent with McMillans pending term of imprisonment for his
state conviction. See USSG 7B1.3(f), p.s. Although 7B1.3(f) dictates that any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of
supervised release be consecutive to any sentence the defendant is
serving, the Chapter 7 policy statements are not binding on the district
court. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 641-42 (4th Cir.
1995). As a result, contrary to the district courts statements at sentencing, the court was not bound to impose a consecutive sentence,
but could have in its discretion ordered a concurrent sentence under
the appropriate circumstances. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S.
81, 92-95 (1996). The district courts failure to recognize its own
power to depart downward renders the error reviewable on appeal.
See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, we vacate McMillans sentence only and remand for
reconsideration of the sentence in light of the district courts discretion and the factors governing the possibility of a downward departure. See Koon, 518 U.S. at 95. The district courts judgment is
affirmed in all other respects. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED
AND REMANDED IN PART
