F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 7 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
vs. No. 98-5081
(D.C. No. 94-CR-176-BU)
PETER JOSEPH M C MAHON, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. **
Mr. McMahon was originally convicted by a jury for two counts of
possessing a firearm after a former felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1), and a further count of possessing a firearm in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) & (2). His sentences on
the § 922(g)(1) counts were enhanced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and USSG §
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
4B1.4 because Mr. McMahon had at least three prior convictions for violent
felony or controlled substance offenses.
In an earlier appeal, United States v. McMahon, 91 F.3d 1394 (10th Cir.
1996), we held that Mr. McMahon’s § 924(c) conviction must be vacated in light
of Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), and remanded the case for
resentencing. The district court sentenced Mr. McMahon to 235 months
imprisonment on counts 1 and 2 to run concurrently, as well as a five-year term of
supervised release. In this appeal, Mr. McMahon challenges the district court’s
imposition of a five-year term of supervised release instead of a three-year term,
and the court’s refusal to reduce his offense level for acceptance of responsibility.
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We
affirm.
Discussion
A. Term of Supervised Release
Mr. McMahon argues that the district court should have sentenced him to a
three-year term of supervised release because the offenses for which he was
convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), were Class C felonies under 18 U.S.C. §
3559(a)(3). As such, the authorized term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. §
3583(b)(2) is no more than three years. He maintains that the court erred by
-2-
including the § 924(e) enhancement as part of “the maximum term of
imprisonment authorized” when classifying the § 922(g)(1) offenses pursuant to §
3559(a). We disagree.
In United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751 (1997), the Supreme Court
considered the meaning of “maximum term authorized,” as used in 28 U.S.C. §
994(h), and held that the phrase “must be read to include all applicable statutory
sentencing enhancements.” Id. at 753. Although we acknowledge that the
context of 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) differs from that of 28 U.S.C. § 994(h), we see no
reason to depart from a similar “ordinary meaning” reading of § 3559(a).
According to that statute, an offense is classified according to “the maximum term
of imprisonment authorized” as a penalty. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a). If the maximum
term is life imprisonment, it is classified as a Class A felony. If the maximum
term is twenty-five years or more, it is a Class B felony. A term of less than
twenty-five years but ten or more years qualifies as a Class C felony. See §
3559(a)(1)-(3). The classification of an offense determines the maximum length
of a term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b).
The penalties for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) are found in 18 U.S.C. §
924. Subsection 924(a)(2) authorizes a maximum term of imprisonment of ten
years. However, for persons who, like Mr. McMahon, have three previous
convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense, the minimum term of
-3-
imprisonment is fifteen years; thus the maximum term is life. See § 924(e)(1).
The Supreme Court’s language in LaBonte is apropos here: “Where Congress has
enacted a base penalty for first-time offenders or nonqualifying repeat offenders,
and an enhanced penalty for qualifying repeat offenders, the ‘maximum term
authorized’ for the qualifying repeat offenders is the enhanced, not the base,
term.” LaBonte, 520 U.S. at 759.
The “maximum term of imprisonment authorized” for Mr. McMahon is life
imprisonment. Therefore, his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) offenses should be classified
as Class A felonies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1). The district court did not
err in sentencing Mr. McMahon to a five-year term of supervised release pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1).
B. Acceptance of Responsibility
Mr. McMahon also challenges the district court’s refusal to reduce his
offense level for acceptance of responsibility, arguing that the court should have
considered his post-conviction rehabilitation efforts. The government responds
that our limited mandate in Mr. McMahon’s earlier appeal, see McMahon, 91 F.3d
at 1396, removed the court’s jurisdiction on remand to consider making an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. We need not consider this argument
because, even if the district court were authorized to conduct de novo
-4-
resentencing, our decision in United States v. Warner, 43 F.3d 1335 (10th Cir.
1994), precludes consideration of Mr. McMahon’s post-sentencing conduct at
resentencing. Although “de novo resentencing permits the receipt of any relevant
evidence the court could have heard at the first sentencing hearing,” id. at 1340
(quoting United States v. Ortiz, 25 F.3d 934, 935 (10th Cir. 1994)), “events
arising after that time are not within resentencing reach.” Id. Thus the district
court did not err in refusing to reduce Mr. McMahon’s offense level based on his
post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-5-