United States of America v. Mickey Dean Beaty

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICKEY DEAN BEATY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30000
D.C. No. 6:94-cr-60100-HO-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Mickey Dean Beaty appeals the 27-month sentence imposed after the district
court found that Beaty violated the terms of his supervised released by engaging in
new criminal conduct, including possession of methamphetamine. The district
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30000 2
court determined that Beaty’s methamphetamine possession constituted a Grade B
violation under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, mandating revocation of his supervised release.
Beaty contends that the maximum sentence he could have received for the
state law crimes of which he was accused was one year, and therefore the resulting
supervised release violation fell within Grade C under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a), and a
sentencing range of 8-14 months. Beaty argues that the district court erred by
looking to the maximum indeterminate sentence available for the state law crimes
and by ignoring the shorter maximum determinate sentence provided by the
Oregon Sentencing Guidelines. As Beaty acknowledges, his contention is
foreclosed by this court’s case law. See United States v. Parry, 479 F.3d 722, 724-
25 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir. 2005).
We reject Beaty’s request that we reconsider our case law. See United States v.
Mayer, 560 F.3d 948, 963-64 (9th Cir. 2009) (following Murillo and Parry and
noting that a 3-judge panel could not overrule another panel absent intervening
Supreme Court authority).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --