UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert M. SILVER, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
Opinion
Van Sickle, J.
Robert M. Silver appeals the District Court’s decision to extend his probationary period for two years without benefit of a formal hearing. The Defendant believes that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, § 212 (a)(2), 98 Stat. 1837 (1984), as amended by Sentencing Act of 1987, Pub.L. No. 100-182, § 2 , 101 Stat. 1266 , added the requirement of a hearing to probation extensions which, he contends, should be applied to this ease.
I
On December 9, 1991, the Defendant pled guilty to a two-count information charging him with paying an illegal kickback in connection with the procurement of a government contract, 41 U.S.C. §§ 53 and 54, and with subscribing to a false income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (i). In the information, the kickback was alleged to have taken place on September 30, 1987 and the false income tax return was subscribed to on December 11, 1985.
The Defendant was sentenced on June 29, 1992 to a term of three years probation, conditioned upon service of a six-month sentence in a community corrections facility, by the Honorable William J. Rea, United States District Court, Central District of California. On June 13, 1995, the United States Probation…