United States v. James Poe, III


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, PASCO M. BOWMAN and STEVEN M. COLLOTON; (UNPUBLISHED). Attorney Mr. Kim Driggers' motion [3916959-2] to withdraw as counsel is granted. Appellant James Poe's motion for release is denied [3921973-2]. [3934420] [12-1884]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 12-1884 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. James Charles Poe, III, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: July 18, 2012 Filed: July 23, 2012 ___________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. While James Poe was serving a term of supervised release, he violated his release conditions. After a revocation hearing, the district court1 revoked supervised release and sentenced Poe to serve 12 months in prison with no further period of supervised release. Poe appeals, and we affirm. Poe argues that his sentence is illegal, because when the revocation sentence is added to his original sentence of imprisonment, he will have served more time in 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 12-1884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2012 Entry ID: 3934420 prison than the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for the original offense. This argument fails. See United States v. Hergott, 562 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review). The statutory maximum revocation sentence was two years, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and the instant revocation sentence, added to a prior 12-month revocation sentence that Poe served, does not exceed that limit.2 Further, supervised release may be imposed in addition to the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction, see United States v. Postley, 449 F.3d 831, 833 (8th Cir. 2006), and therefore a sentence resulting from revocation of supervised release may result in the offender serving time in addition to the statutory maximum for the original offense of conviction, see United States v. Wirth, 250 F.3d 165, 170 n.3 (2d Cir. 2001). Poe also complains that the district court erred in making a finding as to when he entered federal custody. Any error is harmless, however, given the availability of administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Pardue, 363 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court; we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw; and we deny Poe’s motion for release, having concluded that the arguments in support thereof are meritless. ______________________________ 2 The underlying offense occurred before the April 30, 2003 effective date of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003), and therefore the district court properly reduced the statutory maximum revocation sentence by the length of the prior revocation sentence. See Hergott, 562 F.3d at 970. - 2- Appellate Case: 12-1884 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2012 Entry ID: 3934420

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?