U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1993

United States v. Clarence J. Hobbs

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided January 22, 1993 · Tjoflat, Edmondson, Black

981 F.2d 1198; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 934; 1993 WL 1759 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Suzanne Hashimi, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for defendant-appellant., Thomas A. Devlin, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Gary Mitsven (11th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Harrison (District Court, District of Columbia 1993)
United States v. Travis Cork (11th Cir. 2007)
United States v. Thomas L. Marlow (6th Cir. 2002)
United States v. Maurice S. Johnson (8th Cir. 2002)
United States v. Bobby E. Wesley (4th Cir. 1996)
United States v. Sir Victor W. Bryant, I (7th Cir. 1996)
United States v. McCullough (5th Cir. 1995)
United States v. Tony McCullough (5th Cir. 1995)
Hobbs v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1993)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Hobbs received a four-month sentence in a halfway house, followed by a three-year probation, for one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Later, Hobbs violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing, the district court resen-tenced Hobbs to six months’ imprisonment, followed by a two-year term of supervised release. Hobbs appeals, arguing that the district court had no authority to include a supervised release period after the revocation of probation.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2), if a defendant violates a probation condition, the district court may revoke probation and “impose any other sentence that was available under subchapter A [18 U.S.C. §§ 3551-59] at the time of the initial sentencing.” In turn, 18 U.S.C. § 3551(b)(3) provides that a defendant may be sentenced to “a term of imprisonment as authorized by subchapter D [§§ 3581-86].” And Subchapter D, § 3583(a) says that the court “may include as part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment.” So, district courts are authorized to impose a period of supervised release as a consequence of probation revocation.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.