United States v. Clarence Hurt, III

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 11307·345 F.3d 1033·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9003·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20441
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 8, 200302-30297California1,254 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gould, J.

Appellant Clarence Hurt, III, appeals a district court order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve months of imprisonment, followed by an additional twenty-four months of supervised release. The district court denied Hurt’s motion to amend his sentence to impose the maximum statutory penalty of twenty-four months’ incarceration with no supervised release, despite the acquiescence in Hurt’s motion by the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Probation Officer. We conclude that the district court was not required to impose the maximum penalty that both parties sought and that the court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Hurt to an additional term of supervised release.

I

On April 9, 1997, Hurt, a convicted felon, was charged with possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). The district court sentenced him to thirty-three months’ incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. Hurt violated several conditions of his release, including failing to truthfully answer the probation officer’s inquiries, failing to take psychotropic medications and participate in mental health treatment, associating with minor…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.