United States v. Amadu Barry

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 16-2732 ___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AMADU BARRY, Appellant ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa. No. 2-14-cr-00272-007) District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage ____________________________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on October 5, 2017 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 9, 2017) ___________ OPINION* ___________ KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Amadu Barry appeals an order of the District Court revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of incarceration followed by a new term of supervised * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. release. He claims that the District Court committed procedural error at sentencing when it failed to consider that, per the Sentencing Guidelines, supervised release ordinarily is inappropriate for non-citizen defendants like Barry who are likely to be removed from the United States after release from incarceration. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). We will affirm. I. Barry is a citizen of Liberia who, at all times relevant, was living in the United States as a lawful permanent resident. In January 2015, he pleaded guilty to two counts of a superseding indictment charging him with credit card fraud, one count charging him with attempted credit card fraud, and one count charging him with conspiracy, all in violation of federal law. The District Court imposed a sentence of time served, plus four concurrent, three-year terms of supervised release. Conditions of Barry’s supervised release included that he refrain from committing new crimes and that he “report to the probation officer in a manner and frequency directed by the court or probation officer.” JA 3. Around seven months into his terms of supervised release, Barry was arrested in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, by local law enforcement for possession of marijuana and on suspicion of using fraudulent credit cards. Soon after, Barry failed to report to his federal probation officer to discuss the new arrest. Consequently, the probation officer lodged a petition with the District Court charging Barry with two violations of his supervised release.1 It conducted a hearing, at the close of which it sustained both 1 In response, the District Court issued a bench warrant. When the U.S. Marshals arrested Barry pursuant to that warrant, they found in his possession “prepaid visa cards 2 charges, revoked Barry’s supervised release, and imposed a Guidelines-range sentence of 14 months of imprisonment, to be followed by a new, 20-month term of supervised release.2 Barry appealed. II.3 Barry argues on appeal that it was “procedurally unreasonable” for the District Court to impose “a new term of supervised release in light of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c).” Appellant’s Supp. Br. at 2. Section 5D1.1(c) provides that a “court ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in which supervised release is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals