Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Bruce Caldwell, 946 F.2d 887, 4th Cir. (1991)
United States v. Bruce Caldwell, 946 F.2d 887, 4th Cir. (1991)
2d 887
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR89-257)
Argued: John Herman Hare, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, S.C., for
appellant.
Gregory Poole Harris, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
S.Carolina, for appellee.
On brief: E. Bart Daniel, United States Attorney, Columbia, S.C., for
appellee.
D.S.C.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Before WIDENER and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, United
States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Sitting by
Designation.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Caldwell appeals from an order of the district court revoking his
probation and sentencing him to a ten month term of imprisonment. He argues
that the court erred in imposing a sentence in excess of the guideline range
applicable at the time of his initial sentencing. We agree and vacate and remand
for resentencing.
We recently decided an identical issue in United States v. Alli, 929 F.2d 995
(4th Cir.1991). While in that case we discussed 3565(a)(2), the language at
issue, "available ... at the time of initial sentencing," is identical to that in
3565(b). We held that upon revocation of probation, Alli could be sentenced to
no more than the maximum guideline sentence applicable to him at the time of
his initial sentencing. 929 F.2d at 999.
6
While every circuit that addressed the issue prior to the effective date of the
new policy statements has held that "sentence that was available" means the
sentence available under the guidelines at the time of the initial sentencing,5 no
circuit appears to have decided the issue when the defendant's resentencing
occurred after the effective date of the policy statements on revocation of
probation.
10
11
Although the policy statements were not effective at the time of Alli's
sentencing, we mentioned that they had been promulgated prior to our decision
in Alli. 929 F.2d at 999. In Alli, we stated that the policy statements
recommended a sentence less than what was available under the guidelines at
the time of his initial sentencing but noted that the policy statements were not
effective at the time of resentencing. Therefore, we did not apply the policy
statements to Alli
See United States v. Alli, 929 F.2d 995 (4th Cir.1991); United States v. White,
925 F.2d 284 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Von Washington, 915 F.2d 390
(8th Cir.1990); United States v. Smith, 907 F.2d 133 (11th Cir.1990)