No Booker error in imposing consecutive sentences for violation of terms of supervised release and illegal reentry after deportation
SENTENCING United States v. Contreras-Martinez, No. 04-2072, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. June 1, 2005)(New Mexico). Appeal of consecutive sentences for violation of terms of supervised release and illegal reentry to United States after deportation. HELD: Because potions of federal sentencing guidelines governing revocation of supervised release were advisory policy statements prior to Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), district court knew it was not bound by guidelines calling for consecutive sentences for violation of terms of supervised release and offense serving as basis for revocation of supervised release. Thus, by operating under advisory sentencing regime even before Booker was decided, district court did not commit error in its use of sentencing guidelines to guide its discretion as to whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. Read the opinion here. |
Comments on "No Booker error in imposing consecutive sentences for violation of terms of supervised release and illegal reentry after deportation"