United States v. Clarence J. Hobbs , 981 F.2d 1198 ( 1993 )

981 F.2d 1198

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Clarence J. HOBBS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-8380
Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 22, 1993.

Suzanne Hashimi, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for defendant-appellant.

Thomas A. Devlin, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Clarence Hobbs received a four-month sentence in a halfway house, followed by a three-year probation, for one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Later, Hobbs violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing, the district court resentenced Hobbs to six months' imprisonment, followed by a two-year term of supervised release. Hobbs appeals, arguing that the district court had no authority to include a supervised release period after the revocation of probation.

2

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2), if a defendant violates a probation condition, the district court may revoke probation and "impose any other sentence that was available under subchapter A [18 U.S.C. §§ 3551-59] at the time of the initial sentencing." In turn, 18 U.S.C. § 3551(b)(3) provides that a defendant may be sentenced to "a term of imprisonment as authorized by subchapter D [§§ 3581-86]." And Subchapter D, § 3583(a) says that the court "may include as part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment." So, district courts are authorized to impose a period of supervised release as a consequence of probation revocation.

3

AFFIRMED.