United States v. Eugene Bussey , 33 F. App'x 834 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-3333
    ___________
    United States of America,           *
    *
    Appellee,                * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                             * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Eugene Bussey, also known as Doc,   *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 16, 2002
    Filed: April 22, 2002
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Eugene Bussey appeals the twenty-month sentence imposed by the District
    1
    Court after Bussey admitted to violations of the terms of his supervised release. We
    affirm.
    At his revocation hearing, Bussey admitted to using cocaine numerous times
    during the year and four months that he was under supervised release. Despite
    1
    The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    participation in drug counseling and completion of a thirty-day residential inpatient
    treatment program, Bussey continued to violate the terms of his release by using
    cocaine. Although the recommended guideline sentence applicable to Bussey's
    revocation was only four to ten months, the District Court departed upward to twenty
    months. The court deemed the longer sentence necessary both to punish and deter
    Bussey's conduct and to afford Bussey the opportunity to participate in a Bureau of
    Prisons drug treatment program. Bussey argues that the court abused its discretion
    by imposing the longer sentence because the reasons given by the court for the
    sentence are inconsistent and contradictory.
    Because the revocation guideline ranges are advisory only, see United States
    v. Brown, 
    203 F.3d 557
    , 558 (8th Cir. 2000), a district court's decision to impose a
    revocation sentence outside the recommended range is sound so long as the court
    considers the appropriate statutory factors, see 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3553
    (a), 3583(e) (1994),
    and does not exceed the statutory maximum revocation sentence, see 
    id.
     § 3583(e)(3).
    The District Court considered the appropriate factors, and did not exceed the
    maximum sentence. The court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion. We affirm.
    See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-3333

Citation Numbers: 33 F. App'x 834

Filed Date: 4/22/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023