F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 7 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 03-7116
v. E.D. Oklahoma
JOHN WAYNE PINCKARD, (D.C. No. 95-CR-49-P)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE , ANDERSON , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
*
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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.
John Wayne Pinckard appeals the district court’s revocation of his term of
supervised release, arguing the court erred in finding he possessed a controlled
substance based on a single positive urinalysis.
Pinckard was originally sentenced to sixty months’ imprisonment, followed
by four years of supervised release, having pled guilty to a charge of drug
conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pinckard’s term of supervised
release began on October 15, 1999. As part of the conditions of his supervised
release, Pinckard underwent periodic drug testing. He tested positive for some
combination of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and d-methamphetamine three
times in 2000, twice in 2001, and once in 2003. Following the last of these,
reported on August 28, 2003, Pinckard’s probation officer requested that the court
initiate revocation proceedings. The officer stated in his petition that:
The defendant completed the 500 hour Comprehensive Drug
Treatment Program during his last period of incarceration. In
addition, he has been participating in extensive outpatient treatment
during this period of supervised release. Therefore, with the
exhaustion of these viable treatment options, it shall be the
recommendation of this officer that the supervision of Mr. Pinckard
be revoked.
Pet. for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision at 2, R. Vol. I, tab
56. Pinckard filed a response to the officer’s petition, arguing the court should
not take into account the first five positive drug tests because they had already
been considered in prior revocation actions. Following a hearing, the court found
-2-
that Pinckard had violated a mandatory condition of his supervised release by
being in unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In making this finding,
the court relied only on the most recent failed drug test. The court revoked
Pinckard’s term of supervised release and sentenced him to thirty-six months’
imprisonment, explaining that it “considered the additional positive [drug tests]
. . . as aggravation, as the reasons for imposing this sentence at the top of the
statutory [range].” Hr’g Tr. at 23, R. Vol. II.
On appeal, Pinckard argues that the district court erred in its application of
18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1) because, he contends, a positive drug test cannot form the
basis for a finding of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. We
considered and rejected this argument in United States v. Hammonds , No.
03-7081, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. 2004). Pinckard also argues that the district
court should have ordered him to enroll in a drug treatment program, in accord
with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), rather than revoking his term of supervision. Having
carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing revocation rather than enrollment in a drug treatment
program. The district court’s revocation order is therefore AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-