DocketNumber： 03-3636
Citation Numbers： 96 F. App'x 440
Judges： Bye, McMillian, Per Curiam, Riley
Filed Date： 5/18/2004
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/6/2024
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 03-3636 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa James R. Harker-Bey, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: May 4, 2004 Filed: May 18, 2004 ___________ Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. James Harker-Bey appeals from the final judgment entered in the District 1 Court for the Northern District of Iowa upon revocation of his supervised release. The district court sentenced Harker-Bey to 14 months imprisonment followed by continuation of his supervised release until its original expiration date. For reversal, Harker-Bey argues that the district court engaged in speculation in concluding that 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. he missed his drug-testing appointments because of cocaine usage, and failed to consider his proffered reasons--he had been having memory problems and mental- health issues--for missing his appointments. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. In July 1994 Harker-Bey pleaded guilty to distribution of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Harker-Bey commenced supervised release in June 2000. In October 2003, the government petitioned for revocation based on Harker-Bey’s drug and alcohol use and multiple failures to report for drug testing, all of which Harker-Bey admitted. We reject Harker-Bey’s arguments. The 14-month prison term imposed by the district court is within the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) (8-14 month range), and is not an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Grimes,54 F.3d 489
, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). Furthermore, the district court was not obligated to credit, or to use as a basis for sentencing leniency, the explanations offered by Harker-Bey as to why he violated his supervised-release conditions. See United States v. Hensley,36 F.3d 39
, 41 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-