UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4780
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC SCOTT BARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00068-IMK-1)
Submitted: April 8, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Scott Barker appeals the district court’s amended
judgment imposing an eighteen-month sentence for violating the
terms of his supervised release that is to run consecutively to
another federal sentence. Barker claims the court misunderstood
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) (policy statement)
to require the court to impose a consecutive sentence instead of
a concurrent one. We find no error and affirm.
In United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 n.9
(4th Cir. 1995), this court stated that the Chapter Seven policy
statements concerning revocation of supervised release are not
mandatory. See also United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409
F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir. 2005) (despite “seemingly mandatory
language,” USSG § 7B1.3(f) “is merely an advisory policy
statement”). We find the record clearly shows that when the
district court entered the amended judgment and reimposed the
consecutive eighteen-month sentence it knew it had the
discretion to make the determination as to how the sentence was
to run in relation to the other federal sentence and it was not
bound by USSG § 7B1.3(f).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s amended
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3