Filed: Aug. 30, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-50158 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JEFFREY CRUMEDY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-94-CR-32-ALL - August 30, 2002 Before GARWOOD, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jeffrey Crumedy appeals the 30 month sentence that he received upon revocation of his supervised release. Because there are
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-50158 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JEFFREY CRUMEDY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-94-CR-32-ALL - August 30, 2002 Before GARWOOD, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jeffrey Crumedy appeals the 30 month sentence that he received upon revocation of his supervised release. Because there are ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50158
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY CRUMEDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-94-CR-32-ALL
--------------------
August 30, 2002
Before GARWOOD, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffrey Crumedy appeals the 30 month sentence that he
received upon revocation of his supervised release. Because
there are no applicable guidelines for sentencing after
revocation of probation, we will uphold Crumedy’s sentence unless
it is in violation of law or plainly unreasonable. See United
States v. Pena,
125 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 1997). Crumedy
asserts, under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), that
his original offense is a Class C felony because no drug quantity
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-50158
-2-
was alleged in the indictment and that, under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(c)(3), the maximum term of imprisonment he could receive
is two years.
In United States v. Moody,
277 F.3d 719, 720-21 (5th Cir.
2001), we addressed a similar argument with respect to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(h). Both § 3583(e)(3) and § 3583(h) base the length of
sentences on revocation on “the term of supervised release
authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in such term
of supervised release.” As we held in Moody, this language
requires the district court to consider the original statute
under which the defendant was sentenced. Moody, 277 at 721.
Crumedy was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Because
the maximum sentence for this offense was life imprisonment, it
was a Class A felony at the time of original conviction and is a
Class A felony under current law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1) and
§ 841(b)(1)(A). Upon revocation of supervised release, a
defendant may be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison
if the original offense is a Class A felony. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). The 30 month sentence that Crumedy received upon
revocation of supervised release is within this limit.
AFFIRMED.