United States v. David Isser Greene ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                                     ___________
    No. 95-1842
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    *
    v.                                 *   Appeal from the United States
    *   District Court for the District
    David Isser Greene,                     *   of Minnesota
    *
    Appellant.                *           [UNPUBLISHED]
    ___________
    Submitted:    November 14, 1995
    Filed:   March 7, 1996
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    We revisit the sentence in this case.          In United States v. Greene,
    
    41 F.3d 383
    (8th Cir. 1994), we reversed the sentence of five months
    imprisonment and five months home detention plus two years supervised
    release and remanded the sentence to the district court for an evidentiary
    hearing to determine the amount of the monetary loss related to the
    sentence.
    On remand, the district judge reduced the amount of the loss for the
    offense but for other reasons imposed the same sentence.      Greene then again
    appealed.   We affirm.
    The record indicates that the district court relied on appropriate
    grounds in imposing the sentence in this case.          We cannot say that the
    district judge treated the defendant unfairly.
    Even under appellant's sentence calculation, the sentencing judge might
    have imposed a penalty of six months incarceration.
    Here the judge imposed a five-month concurrent sentence plus five
    months home detention, all subject to work release privileges plus the two
    years of supervised release.   In addition, defendant will be entitled to
    credit for time already served pending appeal.   (Appellant's brief states
    this period to be forty-two days).
    Finally, we observe that appellant's counsel at oral argument stated
    that, during Greene's initial incarceration, prison officials did not
    permit Greene work release as recommended by the district judge.      The
    record in this case would indicate that work release privileges would be
    appropriate and would benefit Greene as well as society.    We assume the
    Bureau of Prisons will follow this work release recommendation from the
    sentencing judge.
    We affirm without further opinion.    See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-1842

Filed Date: 3/7/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021