Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 94-60826
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MOISES ESCAMILLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
December 1, 1995
Before KING, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Moises Escamilla appeals the two-year term of imprisonment
imposed by the district court when it revoked his supervised
release. Escamilla recognizes that this court (together with all
other circuit courts that have addressed the issue) has
consistently held that the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the
Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory and that a court only
need consider them in rendering a decision. See, e.g., United
States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 92 (5th Cir. 1994). Escamilla
argues, however, that after the amendment of 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(4) by the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of

1994,1 the statute now requires that a district court sentence a
supervised release violator within the sentencing range
prescribed by the Sentencing Commission's "policy" statements
concerning violations of probation and supervised release, even
though the Sentencing Commission itself states that these policy
statements are not mandatory. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit addressed and rejected this argument in a well-reasoned
opinion by Chief Judge Merritt in United States v. West, 59 F.3d
32 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, No. 95-6370, 1995 WL 625069
(U.S. Nov. 13, 1995). We too reject this argument for the
reasons set out in West. Unless and until the Sentencing
Commission issues guidelines for Chapter 7 or changes the policy
statements to guidelines or Congress unequivocally legislates
that the policy statements in Chapter 7 are binding, this court
will not reduce the flexibility of the district courts in
sentencing supervised release violators.
Escamilla's sentence is hereby AFFIRMED.
1
Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1976 (Sept. 13, 1994).
2