United States v. McMillan ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 00-4473
    JERRY ROGER MCMILLAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    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    Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished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, Char-
    lotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                    UNITED STATES v. MCMILLAN
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry Roger McMillan appeals the district court’s judgment impos-
    ing a twenty-four month sentence for his violation of the terms of his
    supervised release. McMillan suggests that the district court errone-
    ously concluded that it lacked the discretion to impose a sentence
    concurrent with McMillan’s pending term of imprisonment for his
    state conviction. See USSG § 7B1.3(f), p.s. Although § 7B1.3(f) dic-
    tates 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 court’s statements at sen-
    tencing, 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 court’s 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 McMillan’s sentence only and remand for
    reconsideration of the sentence in light of the district court’s discre-
    tion and the factors governing the possibility of a downward depar-
    ture. See Koon, 
    518 U.S. at 95
    . The district court’s 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4473

Filed Date: 12/27/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014