UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MICHAEL STEVE BURKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1997-05-29
No. 96-6354
Before BLACK, Circuit Judge, RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BURNS , Senior District Judge.
113 F.3d 211 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1997) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: Military police arrested Michael Steve Burke for driving while intoxicated in the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, a place within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States. Because there is no federal law prohibiting such conduct, he was charged under the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13, with violating Maryland Code Annotated [Transportation] § 21-902(a) (1995) (“Driving While Intoxicated”). Three years later, Burke pled guilty to the offense in the Middle District of Alabama. The magistrate judge sentenced him to one year in prison followed by a one-year term of supervised release.

On appeal, Burke argues that the ACA limits the total number of days of his imprisonment plus supervised release to the one-year maximum term of incarceration allowed under Maryland Code Annotated [Transportation] § 27-101(k). Under the de novo standard of review, see United States v. Rojas, 47 F. 3d 1078, 1080 (11th Cir.1995), we affirm. In United States v. Pierce, 75 F. 3d 173, 178 (4th Cir.1996), the Fourth Circuit rejected a defendant’s argument that the ACA limits the total number of days of imprisonment plus supervised release to the maximum number of days of incarceration allowed under the assimilated state law.

We find the Fourth Circuit’s opinion persuasive and adopt its reasoning. AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Gaskell, 134 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 1998)
    …BARKEF1VI, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I concur because I believe this case is controlled by our precedent in United States v. Burke, 113 F. 3d 211 (11th Cir.1997). However, I share some of the same reservations expressed by Judge Hill.…
    1 / 4
  • United States v. Pate, 321 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 2003)
    …ystems. State law is not assimilated for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 13 if it conflicts with federal law. United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286, 292-93, 78 S.Ct. 291, 295-96, 2 L.Ed.2d 282 (1958); Gaskell, 134 F. 3d at 1043; United States v. Burke, 113 F. 3d 211, 211 (11th Cir.1997); United States v. Pinto, 755 F. 2d 150, 154 (10th Cir.1985). The Pinto court explained that federal courts must sentence a defendant to a term of years in accordance with the state statutes. 755 F. 2d at 154. State policies re…
  • United States v. English, 589 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 2009)
    …uthority to include “as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment”). We have applied this general rule even in the context of an ACA conviction. See United States v. Burke, 113 F. 3d 211 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam). In Burke, the defendant was sentenced to the statutory maximum of one year in prison followed by one year of supervised release for violating Maryland’s DUI law under the ACA. See id. at 211. We agreed with the Fourt…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw