United States v. Roger Bruce Bugh ( 1997 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 96-3594
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Roger Bruce Bugh, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 29, 1997
Filed: May 9, 1997
___________
Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
After Roger Bruce Bugh pleaded guilty to intending to commit larceny
at a federally-insured bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), the
district court1 sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment and two years
supervised release. In October 1996, while serving his supervised release,
Bugh admitted to violating his supervised-release conditions. The court
revoked Bugh's supervised release, sentencing him to serve 14 months
imprisonment and thereafter to resume his supervised-release term until
June 9, 1998--the expiration of his original term of supervised release (a
period of approximately ten months). Bugh appeals, and we affirm.
1
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Bugh challenges the supervised-release portion of his revocation
sentence, arguing that other circuits have disagreed with our decision in
United States v. Schrader, 973 F.2d 623, 624-25 (8th Cir. 1992) (district
court can impose imprisonment and supervised release under 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(3) following revocation of supervised release). Bugh’s challenge
to the revocation sentence, however, is unavailing. See United States v.
St. John, 92 F.3d 761, 764, 766-67 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting this circuit has
"consistently and repeatedly" held that revocation sentences imposed under
§ 3583(e)(3) may include both imprisonment and supervised release, as long
as aggregate of terms is less than or equal to original term of supervised
release); United States v. Hartman, 57 F.3d 670, 671 (8th Cir. 1995) (per
curiam) (noting this circuit has repeatedly refused to reconsider Schrader
en banc).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-