United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 94-3616.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMES SYDNEY BOISJOLIE, Defendant-Appellant.
Feb. 12, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida. (No. 94-03250\LAC), Lacey A. Collier,
District Judge.
Before ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant James S. Boisjolie appeals the sentence imposed upon
revocation of his supervised release. As the district court
properly interpreted § 7B1.1 of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines in sentencing Boisjolie, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1990, Boisjolie was convicted in federal court of 6 counts
of interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and sentenced
to 30 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release. One of
the conditions of his supervised release was that he not violate
any federal or state law. In 1994, the Government filed a petition
in federal court alleging that Boisjolie had violated several
conditions of his supervised release, including a conviction in an
Alabama state court for theft by deception. This crime carries a
maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment under Alabama law;
however, as Boisjolie had previous felony convictions in Alabama,
the court sentenced him under Alabama's Habitual Felony Offender
Act which carries a maximum sentence of life.
Following a hearing on the Government's petition, the district
court found that Boisjolie's Alabama conviction constituted a Grade
A violation of his supervised release as defined in § 7B1.1 and
sentenced him to 24 months' imprisonment. Boisjolie argues that
the district court should have found this conviction to be a Grade
B violation instead. He contends the district court erred in
determining the violation grade by applying the maximum sentence
under the Habitual Felony Offender Act rather than the maximum
sentence for theft by deception. The Government responds that the
district court properly followed the plain language of the
Sentencing Guidelines.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court's interpretation of the Sentencing
Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Camacho, 40 F.3d
349, 353 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct.
1810, 131 L.Ed.2d 735 (1995).
III. DISCUSSION
Section 7B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for three
grades of supervised release violations. This section states in
relevant part:
(1) Grade A Violations—conduct constituting ... (B) any other
federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding twenty years;
(2) Grade B Violations—conduct constituting any other federal,
state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year....
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §
7B1.1(a)(1) and (2) (Nov. 1994).
While Boisjolie violated his supervised release by committing
a crime typically punishable by a term of imprisonment not
exceeding 20 years, he was sentenced under Alabama's Habitual
Felony Offender Act which carries a maximum sentence of more than
20 years. No case law exists in this or any circuit addressing
violation grades under § 7B1.1 when a defendant has been sentenced
under a state's habitual offender act. We therefore must decide as
a matter of first impression whether the "conduct constituting any
... state ... offense punishable by a term of imprisonment...."
under § 7B1.1 refers solely to Boisjolie's commission of the crime
of theft by deception, or his commission of the theft as a habitual
offender.
Boisjolie's criminal conduct was not merely the commission of
the crime of theft by deception, but rather his commission of the
theft as a habitual offender. As a result, his offense was
punishable under the Habitual Felony Offender Act by a term of
imprisonment exceeding 20 years. Using the maximum sentence under
the Habitual Felony Offender Act in determining Boisjolie's
violation grade is consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines'
objective of achieving proportionality in sentencing through
tailoring a punishment to fit the individual criminal and the crime
committed. U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt. A, intro. comment., at 2. The
district court correctly used the maximum sentence under the
Habitual Felony Offender Act rather than the maximum sentence for
theft by deception in determining Boisjolie's violation grade
pursuant to § 7B1.1. Although the district court had the
discretion to sentence him below the recommended guideline maximum,
it did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so.
IV. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the district court properly used the maximum
sentence under Alabama's Habitual Felony Offender Act in
determining that Boisjolie's Alabama conviction constituted a Grade
A violation of his supervised release pursuant to § 7B1.1.
AFFIRMED.