United States v. Bryson , 158 F. App'x 453 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4401
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MILLIS SHAKILYA BRYSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-96-7)
Argued: December 2, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, and Walter D.
KELLEY, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Thomas Norman Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-appellant Millis Shakilya Bryson was sentenced to
two years in federal prison after the district court found that he
had violated the conditions of supervised release previously
imposed upon him pursuant to his conviction for violating the
federal prohibition against possession of a firearm by a felon. He
appeals, claiming that the maximum statutory period of supervised
release had elapsed before his violations occurred and that the
district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to return him to
prison for two more years.
Appellant’s entire claim rests on an erroneous belief as to
the end date of the supervised release period. Appellant was
subject to the maximum three year supervised release period, which
was originally scheduled to end on April 22, 2001. J.A. 17. But
because appellant was incarcerated in state prison for a period of
51 months and 22 days –- from December 9, 1999, to January 16,
2004, and from February 23, 2004, to May 8, 2004, J.A. 17 –- the
supervised release period was tolled for that amount of time
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). 51 months and 22 days after April
22, 2001, is August 14, 2005.
Appellant has relied on the probation officer’s erroneous
calculation that, after tolling, the supervised release period was
scheduled to end on September 13, 2004. J.A. 35-36. This reliance
has caused appellant to argue mistakenly that his violations of the
-2-
supervised release conditions occurred after his supervised release
period had ended. The violations, which occurred on September 28,
2004, and January 15, 2005, J.A. 113-14, plainly occurred before
August 14, 2005. The district court therefore clearly had
jurisdiction to revoke appellant’s supervised release and sentence
him to two years in prison. The judgment of the district court is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED
-3-