United States Tenth Circuit

Revocation of defendant's supervised release and a denial of his request to serve his revocation sentence concurrently with a previously discharged state sentence is affirmed where: 1) the totality of the circumstances showed that defendant admitted the allegations in the petition, which established that he had violated the terms of his supervised release; and 2) the district court correctly read 18 U.S.C. section 3584(a) and did not err in concluding that it lacked the authority to impose a sentence to be served concurrently with defendant's discharged state sentence.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/12/2008
• Published 11/13/2008

Judges

• BRISCOE, Circuit Judge., Before BRISCOE, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Art Fleak, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellant., Clinton J. Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney, (David E. O'Meilia, United States Attorney, and Robert T. Raley, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.