United States v. Tarell Scott , 558 F. App'x 594 ( 2014 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0190n.06
No. 13-5829
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Mar 11, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
TARELL SCOTT, ) KENTUCKY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: NORRIS, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Tarell Scott pleaded guilty to escaping from the satellite prison camp at
the U.S. Penitentiary Big Sandy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Scott requested a four-level
reduction in his base offense level pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2P1.1(b)(3),
which applies “[i]f the defendant escaped from the non-secure custody of a community
corrections center, community treatment center, ‘halfway house,’ or similar facility.” Relying on
our holding in United States v. McCullough, 53 F.3d 164, 165 (6th Cir. 1995), that the four-level
reduction “does not apply when sentencing escapees from non-secure federal prison work
camps,” the district court denied Scott’s request. The district court sentenced Scott to twenty-
one months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to the undischarged sentence that he was
serving when he escaped.
In this timely appeal, Scott contends that the district court should have conducted an
evidentiary hearing to determine whether the satellite prison camp at the U.S. Penitentiary Big
No. 13-5829
United States v. Scott
Sandy is sufficiently similar to a community corrections center, community treatment center, or
halfway house to entitle him to the four-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3). This
circuit, along with other circuits that have ruled on the issue, has held “that non-secure federal
prison work camps are not ‘similar’ to ‘community corrections centers, community treatment
centers or halfway houses.’” McCullough, 53 F.3d at 165; see also United States v. Stalbaum, 63
F.3d 537, 540 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Tapia, 981 F.2d 1194, 1197–98 (11th Cir. 1993);
United States v. Shaw, 979 F.2d 41, 44–45 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Brownlee, 970 F.2d
764, 765 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. McGann, 960 F.2d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1992). Scott
concedes that our precedent is against him and that, absent an inconsistent decision by the
Supreme Court or an en banc decision overruling the prior opinion, we cannot overturn another
panel’s published decision. See United States v. Smith, 73 F.3d 1414, 1418 (6th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s sentence.
-2-