2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-29-2009 

# U SA v . C ol lin C ole

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3201

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . C o l l in C o le " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1267. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1267P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 3201

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . CO LLI N R OM EO C OLE C o llin R . C o le , A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal N o. 07- cr - 00162- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr.

A r gued M ar ch 24, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and JO R D A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay29, 2009)2 E ds on A

. B os t i c, E s q. D a n ie l I . S ie g e l, E s q . [ ARGUE D] O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 704 K i ng St r eet Fi r s tFeder al Pl aza , Sui t e 110 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801 C ouns el f orAppel l ant C h ri s to p h e r J . B u rk e , E s q . [ ARGUE D] O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 1007 N or t h O r ange Str eet , Sui t e 700 P. O

. B ox 2046 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. C o lli n R o m e o C o le, a Ja m a ica n n a tio n a l, ple d g u iltyto il lega l r ee n tr y in to the U n it ed S tat es. T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d C ol e t o 7 1 m o n ths i n pr i s on and thr ee y ear s of su p erv ised release

. Ito rde red that the s u p erv ised release term be t ol l ed as l ong as C ol e r emai ned out s i de of t he U ni t ed St at es f o llo w in g h is p o ss ib le r e m o v a l af ter h is p riso n ter m . C o le a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e x c e e d e d its sta tu to rya u th o rity w hen i tt oll ed hi s per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, beca us e t ol l i ng i s nota “c ondi t i on” of s uper vi s ed re l eas e w i t hi n t he meani ng of 28 U

. S. C

. § 3583( d)

. W e ag ree t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not3 have a ut hor i t yt o s us pen d C o le ’ s per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, and w e w i l l acc or di ngl yr emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o corr ect t hi s as pectof hi s s ent ence . I . Backg r ound C ol e w as r emoved f

r om t he U ni t ed St at es i n 2005, aft er h e wa s c o n v i c t e d o f

t wo v i o l e n tf

e l o n i e s i n Ne w Yo r k

. He i l l egal l yr eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es , and i n 2007 he w as arr es t ed on cr i m i nal i m per s onat i on and for gery char ges and i ncar cer at ed i n a D el aw ar e St at e pr i s on. I n N ovember of 2007, I m m i gr at i on and Cu s t o ms En f

o r cement( “I C E ”) l earned of Col e’ s r eentr yand i mp r i s o n me n t , a n d h e wa s c ha r ge d wi t h v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S

. C. § 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) , w hi ch ca r r ya statut or ym axi m um of 20 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent

. H e pl ed gui l t yi n M ar ch of 2008. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d C ol e t o 71 m ont hs i n pr i s on and thr ee y ear s of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. T he cour ts ai d t hat , bas ed on C ol e’ s hi s t or y of i l l egal r eentr yand hi s fami l ys i tuat i on ( he has chi l dr en w ho l i ve i n N ew Y or k) , i tbel i eved he w oul d w ant t o r etur n t o t he U ni t ed St at es . A nt i ci pat i ng C ol e’ s futur e i l l egal r eentr y , t he courtor der ed that hi s t hr ee- y ear t er m of s uper vi s ed r el eas e notrun dur i ng any t i m e he w as excl uded fr om t he U ni t ed St at es . D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ai d: If y o u ’re d ep o rt ed , the term o f su p e rv ised release , M r. C ol e, w i l l run i nact i vel y as l ong as y ou r emai n out s i de t he U ni t ed St at es . Shoul d y ou r eent ert he U ni t ed St at es aft erdepor t at i on, t hatac ti o n w i l l be a vi ol at i on of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . . . .4 N ow , I w ant t o m ake s om ethi ng cl eart o y ou, M r . C ol e. Y o u ’re g o ing to b e o n s u p erv ised release o n ce y o u ’re g o n e f ro m p riso n . T h a t’s ina c tiv e . N o n e o f th a t ti m e is runni ng w hi l e y o u’ r e out s i de the U ni t ed St at es . T he m in u te y o u re e n te r t h e U n ite d S ta te s , it’ s a v io la tio n . . .. S o d o n ’t c o m e b a c k

. (A p p . 2 9 -30

. ) T he w r i t t en j udgm ent of t he D i s t r i ct C our tcont ai ns w hat the co u rtt er m ed a “ s peci al condi t i on[] of s uper vi s i on”: “The defe ndan t’ s t er m of s uper vi s ed r el eas e s hal l run i nact i ve i f the defe ndanti s depor t ed. Shoul d t he def endant r e- ent er the U ni t ed St at es aft erdepor t at i on, s uch ac t i on w i l l be consider ed a v iolati o n o f su p erv ised release

. ” (A p p . 6

. ) I I . D i s cus s i on C o le arg u es that the D istri ct C o u rtex ce ed ed it s statutory author i t yw hen i tor der ed thathi s per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e be t ol l e d d ur i ng hi s pe r i od of e xc l us i on fr om t he U ni t e d St a t es. T he is sue of w hether t he st atutes go verni ng supervi sed rel ease p erm it to llin g in this si tuation is a q u esti o n o f statuto ry in te rp re ta tio n s u b

je c t to d e n o v o re v ie w . See U ni t ed Stat es v. P o e lln itz , 3 7 2 F .3 d 5 6 2 , 5 7 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). B e c a u se C o le d id n o t o bjec t to th e c o n d iti o n d u rin g se n ten c in g , w e re v iew h is sen tenc e u n d er the p lai n erro r stan d ard

. F ed

. R

. C ri m . P

. 5 2 (b). W e have t w o i s s u es t o deci de: w hethert he D i s t r i ct C our t’ s t ol l i ng of s uper vi s ed r el eas e w as pr oper ; and, i f i tw as im p ro p e r, w h e th e r i t w a s a p la in e rr o r.18 U

. S

. C

. § 358 3(d) exp res sl y dir ect s dis t ri ct co u rts to 1 o rd e r th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t n o t co m m it an o th e r c rim e o r u n law f u lly pos s es s a cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance dur i ng t he per i od of s uper vi s ed re lea se . T h e sta tu te a lso in c lu d e s p ro v isio n s th a t d e a l w ith r ehabi l i t at i on fordom es t i c vi ol ence and drug abus e, s ex offe nderr egi st r at i on, D N A s ampl es , and s ubm i s s i on t o drug te s tin g . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (d ). 5 A . T oll i n g is N ot a C on d i ti on of Su p ervis ed R el ease W hether a D i s t r i ctC our texce eds i t s author i t yunder18 U

. S

. C

. § 3 58 3 w hen i torders t hat a ter m of sup ervi sed rel ease be t ol l ed dur i ng t he t i m e thata def endant i s excl uded fr om t he U ni t ed St at es fol l ow i ng r emoval i s an i s s ue of fi r s ti m pr es s i on i n ourcour t

. Four of ours i s t ercour t s of appe al s have he l d t hat s uch t ol l i ng exce eds a di s t r i ct cour t ’ s pow ert o s etcondi t i ons of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. O s sa -G a ll egos , 491 F .3 d 5 3 7 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (e n b a n c ); U ni t ed Stat es v. O koko , 365 F .3 d 9 6 2 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Juan- M

anuel , 222 F .3 d 4 8 0 ( 8 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B al ogun , 146 F. 3d 1 4 1 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 18 U

. S. C

. § 3583( a) author i zes di s t r i ctcour t s t o i ncl ude a per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e as par t of a def endant ’ s s ent ence . In addit i on t o the enu m era ted con dit i on s that a courtm ust i m pose as par tof s uper vi s ed r el eas e, t he s t atut e al s o pr ovi des 1 t hat“[t ] he court m ay or der , as a furt hercondi t i on of s uper vi s ed re le a s e , . . . a n yo th e r c o n d itio n s it c o n s id e rs to b e a p p ro p ri a te ,” as l o n g a s t h e c o n d i t i o n s r e a s o n a b l yr e l a t e t o t h e s e n t e n c i ngA cour tm ay o r dera furthercondi t i on of s uper vi s ed 2 r el eas e i f t he condi t i on r el at es t o t he natur e of th e o ff ense a nd t he hi s t or yof t he defe ndant , as w el l as t he nee d fort he s ent ence t o det ercri m i nal conduct , pr ot ectt he publ i c, and pr ovi de the defe ndantw i t h eff

ect i ve corr ect i onal and reh abi l i t at i ve tr e a tm e n t. See 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 3 (d)(1 ); 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 (a)(1), (a )( 2 )( B )- (D ). 6 fac t or s i n 18 U

. S. C

. § 3553( a)

. I n addi t i on, a s peci al condi t i on 2 m u st in v o lv e n o g re a ter d e p riv a tio n o f lib e rty th a n is re a so n a b ly nece s s aryfor t he purpos es of i m pos i ng t he sent ence and mustbe cons i s t entw i t h anyper t i nentpol i cys t at ement i s s ued byt he S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (d )( 2 )- (3 ). C ol e poi nt s outt hatt he supervi s ed r el eas e s t atut e, 18 U

. S. C

. § 3583, does notexpr es s l yautho ri ze t ol l i ng dur i ng a per i od of exc l us i on fr om t he U ni t ed St at es . H e al s o not es t hat C ongr es s has s peci fi cal l yauthor i zed t ol l i ng of s uper vi s ed r el eas e i n onl y one s i tuat i on – w her e t he def endanti s i m pr i s oned on an unr el at ed cr i m e for m or e than 30 day s . A ddi t i onal l y , he ar gues t h at the ca non of expr es s i o uni us es texc l us i o al t er i us ( t he expr es s i on of one thi ng i s t he excl us i on of another ) m eans t hatC ongr ess d id noti nt end fort ol l i ng t o be appl i ed i n ot her s itu a tio n s . See 18 U

. S. C

. § 36 2 4 (e)

. C ol e ac know l edges t hat t he s t atut e does al l ow di s t r i ct cour t s t o cr eat e s peci al condi t i ons of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, butar gues t hatt ol l i ng i s nots uch a “con dit i on ” beca use t here i s no “ac t i vityt he d efen dan tm ust avoi d, no t as k t he def

endantm us tcom p let e, no r es t r i ct i on t he d ef en d an t m u st ob serv e.” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. 9

. )7 T h e go v ern m en t arg u es th at the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err w hen i tt ol l ed C ol e’ s per i o d o f supervi s ed r el eas e. A ccor di ng to th e g o v e rn m e n t, C o n g re ss g a v e d istric t co u rts b ro a d p o w e r in § 3583( d) t o s ets uper vi s ed r el eas e condi t i ons . I tar gues t hatt he t ol l i ng i s a cl as s i c “c ondi t i on of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, ” one that relates to the n ature an d circu m stan ce s o f th e o ff en se, th e h ist o ry and cha r ac teri sti cs o f th e d ef en d an t, d eterren ce , p rotec t i on of the publ i c, and the provi s i on of needed c or r ect i onal t r eatm ent

. T he governm ent cont ends t hat i t m akes s ens e for t he su p er vi s ed re lea se ter m to b e to lled , b e c a u se th e U .S . P ro b a tio n O f f ice w ill n o t b e a b le to su p e rv ise th e d e f e n d a n t d u rin g th e tim e h e is out s i de the U ni t ed St at es , and the re habi l i t at i ve and tr ans i t i onal f u n c tio n s o f su p e rv ise d re lea se w ill b e lo st. F u rth e rm o re , it u rg e s th a t if th e d e f

e n d a n t r e tu rn s to th e U n ited S tate s, h e sh o u ld fa ce the f u ll set o f req u ir em en ts i n the s u p erv ised release o rde r. T h e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e S ix th C irc u it addr es s ed al l of t hes e ar gum ent s i n i t s t hor ough en banc opi ni on i n U ni t ed St at es v. O s s a- G al l egos , 4 9 1 F

. 3 d 5 3 7 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). Os s a - Ga l l e g o s , l i k e Co l e , wa s c h a r g e d wi t h i l l e g a l r e e n t r y . He w as s ent ence d t o 33 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entand tw o y ear s of s uper v i s e d r e l e a s e , a n d t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r to r d e r e d t h a tt he s uper vi s ed r el eas e t er m w oul d be t ol l ed w hi l e he w as out s i de of th e U n ite d S ta te s . In th e p a n e l o p in io n , U ni t ed Stat es v. O s s aG al l egos , 4 5 3 F .3 d 3 7 1 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), th e c o u rt w a s o b lig e d to affirm t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s decisio n to t oll supervi sed rel ease b e c a u s e in a n e a rl ie r c a s e , U ni t ed Stat es v. I

s ong , 111 F. 3d 428 ( 6t h C i r . 1997) , t he courthad i m pl i cit lypr es um ed thatt ol l i ng w as a condit ion of

s uper vi s ed r el eas e and f ound t hati tw as r eas onabl yr el at ed t o the § 3553( a) fac t or s . O s s a- G al l egos a c k n o w led g e d th a t I

s ongbound the panel , butpet i t i oned for8 r evi ew byt he ful l court

. T he courtvaca t ed the pane l opi ni on and gr ant ed en ba nc r evi ew . T he en b an c cour tfound, unani m ous l y , t hatt ol l i ng w as nota condi t i on of s uper vi s ed release a nd overrul ed I s ong . 4 9 1 F. 3 d a t 5 4 5

. Th e e n banc cour t ’ s r eas oni ng i n O s s a- G al l egos i s per s uas i ve. Sect i on 3583( d) al l ow s di s t r i ctcour t s t o or der

“ c o n d iti o n s” o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se ; th e re f o r e , o u r in q u iryis w hethert ol l i ng i s s uch a c ondi t i on. I f t ol l i ng i s nota condi t i on, t hen a di s t r i ctcour thas no author i t yt o or dert ol l i ng of su p erv ised release

. W ith in the ex ist ing juri sp rud en ce there are t w o di ffe r ent appr oache s t o defi ni ng “condi t i on. ” The en banc O s s a- G al l egos cou rtreas on ed thata “con dit i on ” i s a cont i ngency , a pr er equi s i t e orci r cumst ance nece ssaryt o a par t i cul arr es ul t

. 491 F. 3d. at 541. O t her cour t s have he l d t hat a “con dit i on ” i s som et hing ov er w h ich the de fend ant has a degr ee of

contr ol , s om eth ing t hatt he def endantei t herm us tdo o r m u s t r e f

ra in f ro m d o in g . See O koko , 3 6 5 F .3 d a t 9 6 6 ; JuanManuel , 2 2 2 F .3 d a t 4 8 7 ; B al ogun , 1 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 4 6

. W e ar e not convi nced thatw e nee d t o choos e a pa r t i cul ar defini t i on for “con dit i on . ” O ur focu s i s on w hether t oll i ng i s a condi t i on, and w e bel i eve the bett er r eadi ng of the s t atut e i s t hat t ol l i ng i s not a condi t i on of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. R ather , t ol l i ng i s a s u spens i on of t he s uper vi s ed r el eas e per i od, a w ayof rem o v ing the d ef

en d an t from th e ef

fe cts o f h is sen tenc e f

o r a s peci fi c per i od of t i m e. I ti s us eful t o r emem ber t hatt ol l i ng has i t s r oot s i n equi t y , as a w ay of t empora r i l ys t oppi ng t he runni ng o f tim e f o r f a ir n e s s re a s o n s . See, e. g. , Shendock v. D i r . , O

f f i ce o f Wo r ke rs ’Co mp . P r o g r a ms , 893 F. 2d 1458, 1462 ( 3d C i r. 1 9 9 0 ). A sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, f o r e x a m p le, m a yb e to lled w h ile9 t he pl ai nt i ff i s a m i nor , orw hen the pl ai nt i ff ha s been pr event ed f ro m a s s e rt in g h is ri g h ts in s o m e e x tr a o rd in a ry w a y . S e e , e .g ., S a n tos ex r el

. B eat o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 559 F. 3d 189 ( 3d C i r. 2 0 0 9 ); U r ci nol iv. C athel , 5 4 6 F

. 3 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 2 -73 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). T ol l i ng, as a s us pens i on of t he t i m e t hat s uper vi s ed r el eas e runs , i s qui t e unl i ke anyof the other co n d it ions that di s t r i ctcour t s m ayi m pos e as par to f su p er vi s ed r el eas e: r efr ai ni ng fr om i l l egal drug us e; goi ng t o a reh abi l i t at i on p r o g ra m f

o r s e x o f f e n d e rs ; p ro v id in g a D N A s a m p le

. See 18 U

. S. C

. § 3583( d)

. O t her s peci al condi t i ons i ncl ude r equi r i ng a defe ndantt o not i fy hi s pr obat i on offi cerw hen he i s ques t i oned b ylaw e n f

o rc e m e n t, or lim iti n g a d e f e n d a n t’s c o n tac t w ith m in o rs . S e e , e .g ., U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

al oney , 513 F. 3d 350, 357 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Loy , 237 F. 3d 251, 269- 70 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. E ach of t hes e condi t i ons i s an as pectof s uper vi s ed re lea se th a t is tailo re d to e a c h d e f e n d a n t. T h e yh a v e n o th in g to do w i t h t he t i m e thatt he s ent ence ors upervisi on i s runni ng; t ol l i ng i s notanal ogous t o t hes e condi t i ons . W e agr ee w i t h t he O s s a- G al l egos c o u rt, w h ich sa id : [T]ol l i ng des cr i bes t he exi s t i ng s t at e of sup ervi s ed r el eas e – t hat i s , w hether or not t he per i od of s uper vi s ed r el ease i s runni ng. ‘ T ol l i ng’ i s nota ‘ condi t i on’ i n t he s e n s e i n whi c h t h e t e r m i s u s e d i n § 3 5 8 3 ( d ) , and t her efor e, c o u r t s do nothave a ut hor i t yunder§ 3583( d) t o i s s ue ‘c ondi t i ons ’ of s uper vi s ed r el eas e w hi ch t ol l t he p e rio d f o r w h ich d e p o rte d a lien s a re su b jec t to s uper vi s ed r el eas e. 4 9 1 F .3 d a t 5 4 2

.T he g ov ernm ent ar gu es that there i s an o ther express 3 t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on, beca us e 18 U

. S. C

. § 3583( i ) gi ves a courtt he pow ert o r evoke a defe ndant ’ s s uper vi s ed r el eas e t er m aft ert he dat e w hen t he t er m w oul d have e xpi r ed i f a w arr antors um m ons fora vi ol at i on of su p ervi s ed r el eas e w as i s s ued bef or e the end of t he t er m . Sever al cour t s r efe rt o t hi s s ect i on as a t ol l i ng p ro v is io n . See e

. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. O koko , 365 F. 3d 962, 964- 6 5 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Juan-Ma n u el , 222 F. 3d 4 8 0 , 4 8 8 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls forthe Si xt h C i r cui t , how ever , does not vi ew s ect i on 3583( i ) as a t o l l i ng pr ovi s i on, “bec aus e t ol l i ng r equi r es an ac tual s us pens i on of t he runni ng of the per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, a n d u n d e r § 3 5 8 3 ( i ) t h e r e i s n o s u s p e n s i o n , b u t r at her an ext ens i on of t he per i od dur i ng w hi ch the go v ernmentm ay pur s ue vi ol at i ons of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O s s aG al l egos , 4 9 1 F .3 d 5 3 7 , 5 4 3 n .5 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e a g re e w ith t he Si xt h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s t hat § 3583( i ) i s nota t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on, beca us e ther e i s no s us pens i on of the s uper vi s ed re lea se p e rio d , b u t ra th e r a n e x ten sio n o f it. 10 T he st ructure of the supervi sed rel ease st atutes al so s ugges t s t hatt ol l i ng a per iod of s uper vi s ed r el eas e fol l ow i ng re m o v a l is b e y o n d th e a u th o ri ty o f a d is tr ic t c o u r t

. B yla w , a t er m of s uper vi s ed r el eas e comm ence s on t he dayt he def endant i s r el eased fro m im pri sonm ent. 18 U

. S

. C

. 36 24 (e)

. C on gress has pr ovi ded foran exc ept i on t o t hi s rul e i n onl yone s i tuat i on : 3 w her e the def

endanti s i m p ri so n ed form or e than 30 day s for a n o th e r c o n v ictio n . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 4 (e ). T h a t is th e o n ly i ns t ance i n w hi ch C ongr es s al l ow ed fort he s us p ens i on of the s uper vi s ed r el ea se per i od, and i tdi d s o s peci fi cal l ybys t atut e.11 W e fi nd per s uas i ve C ol e’ s ar gum entt hatt he ca non of ex p re ss io uni us es texc l us i o al t er i us s ugges t s t hatw her e C on g ress has e x p licitlya llo w e d f

o r to lli n g o n lyw h e n th e d e f e n d a n t is i m pr i s oned on another ch arge , i tdoes noti nt end fordi s t r i ct cour t s t o t ol l s uper vi s ed r el eas e underanyot herci r cumst ance . T he governm entar gues thatan al i en l i vi ng abr oad cannot be s uper vi s ed ef

fec t i vel ybyU

. S. Pr obat i on, w hos e r eac h does n o t ex ten d b e y o n d th e b o rd e rs o f th e U n ited S tate s. F u rth e r, it u rg e s th a t a d e f

e n d a n t m a yf

in d it d if

f icu lt o r im p o ss ib le to compl yw i t h t he condi t i ons of supervi s ed re l eas e, w hi ch means t hat a v i olat i on of the t erm s of sup ervi sed rel ease i s al m ost autom atic. H ow ever, t he st atute address es som e of those conce r ns – none of the mandat or ycondi t i ons of s uper vi s ed re le a s e re q u ir e s p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e in th e U n ite d S ta te s (e .g ., r efr ai ni ng fr om t he us e of drugs , notcomm i t t i ng a cr i m e) and t hos e t hat m i ght ( l i ke drug t r eatm ent ) ar e onl y m andat or y i f they e x is t w ith in a 5 0 -m ile ra d iu s o f th e d e f e n d a n t’ s h o m e . W e al s o not e thatt he s t atut or ys t ructu re m akes t he g overnm ent ’ s pos i t i on l ogi cal l ys us pect : a def endantchar ged w i t h i l l egal r eentr y , s uch as C ol e, m aybe or der ed t o l eave and s t ayout s i de of the U ni t ed St at es as a condi t i on of hi s s uper vi s ed r el eas e. 18 U

. S. C

. § 3583( d) ( “I f an al i en def endanti s s ubj ect t o depor t at i on, t he courtm aypr ovi de, as a condi t i on of s uper vi s e d r e l e a s e , t h a th e b e d e p o r t e d a n d r e ma i n o u t s i d e t he U nit ed St at es . . . . ”)

. I f a de fenda nti s r emoved and or der ed excl uded fr om t he U n i t ed St at es as a condi t i on of s uper vi s ed re lea se , h o w c a n it b e th a t th e p e rio d o f s u p e rv ise d re lea se is t o l l e d d u r i n g t h a tp e r i o d ? See I s ong , 111 F. 3d at433 ( M oor e, J

. , di s s ent i ng)

. T he U ni t ed St at es C our to f A ppeal s fort heTh i s l o g i c a l i n c o n s i s t e n c ya p p e a r s i n t h e Di s t r i ct 4 C o u rt ’s j u d g m en t, in w h ich it w ri tes t h at “[ t] h e d ef en d an t’ s term o f su p e rv ise d re lea se sh a ll ru n in a c tiv e if th e d e f e n d a n t is depor t ed. Shoul d t he defenda nt r e- ent er t he U ni t ed St at es aft er depor t at i on, s uch ac t i o n w i l l be cons i der ed a vi ol at i on of s uper vi s ed r el ea se. ” ( A pp. 6. ) I f the per i od of s uper vi s ed re lea se h a s b e e n to lled a n d is su sp e n d e d d u rin g th e tim e C o le is excl uded fr om the U ni t ed St at es, h is r eentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St a t e s c a n n o t v i o l a t e s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no su p e rv ise d re lea se in e f f e c t. 12 E i ght h C i r cui tnot ed thi s p robl em i n U ni t ed Stat es v. JuanManuel , 222 F. 3d 480 (8th C i r . 2000) : “C ongr es s coul d not have i nt ended t o al l ow a def endant to b e exc l uded fr om t he U ni t ed St at es as a condi t i on of s upervi s ed re l eas e w hi l e, att he s ame ti m e, al l ow al l condi t i ons of s uper vi s ed r el eas e t o be s us pended f

ort he dur at i on of thatexcl us i on. ” I d. at487. 4 W e a p p re c iate th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n ts a s to pract i cal i t yand t he d esi re t o i m po se ter m s o f supe rvi sed rel ease on pos t- r emoval defe ndant s w hen theyr etur n t o t he U ni t ed S tate s – in d e e d , it m a y m a k e se n se f o r C o n g re ss to a d d re ss th is i s s ue and r evi s e the s t atut e – but , as w r i t t en, t he s t atut e does not al l ow di s t r i ctcour t s t o t ol l s uper vi s ed r el eas e per i ods fol l ow i ng re m o v a l. W e c o n c u r w ith o u r sis ter c o u rts o f a p p e a ls: if C ongr es s had w ant ed t o authori ze t ol l i ng t he per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e dur i ng t he pe r i od t hata r emoved defenda nt w a s o u tsid e th e ju risd ict io n o f th e U n ited S tate s, th e sta tu te w oul d cont ai n t hatpr ovi s i on.13 B . P l ai n E rror T he ot her cour t s of appe al s t hathave a ddr es s ed the i s s ue of w hethera t er m of s uper vi s ed r el eas e maybe t ol l ed fol l ow i ng a defe ndant ’ s r emoval have r evi ew ed t he ques t i on d e n o v o. H ow ever , C o le di d notobj ectt o t he t ol l i ng ats ent enci ng; t h e r e f o r e , we r e v i e w h i s s e n t e n c e f o r p l a i n e r r o r . F e d

. R. Cr i m. P . 5 2 (b)

. H aving deci ded t hat t he D i stri ct C ou rt err ed w h e n it t ol l ed C ol e’ s t er m of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, w e mustnow det er mi ne w h ethe r t h at e rror w as p lai n , w h ethe r i t aff ec ted C o le’s subst anti al ri gh t s, a n d w hetheri tser i ou sl yaffects t he fa i rness , in te g ri ty, o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . Co l e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p l a i n e r r o rs t a n d a r d wa s me t

. He ar gues t hatt here w as err or , and thateven though t her e w as no T hi r d C i r cui tpr ecede ntdi r ect l yon poi nt , t he err orw as cl ear beca us e al l of the otherci r cui t s w ho had rul ed on the i s s ue had hel d t hatt her e w as no t ol li n g . F u rther , C ol e s ay s , t he err or a f f e c ted h is s u b sta n tial rig h ts b e c a u se h e w o u ld b e su b jec t to i m pr i s onm entupon hi s r etur n t o t he U ni t ed St at es , eve n i f he returned long aft er t h e three- y ear peri od of sup ervi sed rel ease w o u l d h a v e ru n h a d h e r e m a i n e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . F i n a l l y, he ar gues t hat t he er r or s er i ous l y aff ect ed the i nt egr i t yof j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , beca us e i m pos i ng a s ent ence not author i zed byl aw has a s er i ous and detr i m ent al im p ac ton t he fa i r nes s and re p u ta tio n o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s . T he governm entr evi s i t s i t s ar gum ent s t hatt her e w as no e rro r i n th e f

irst p lac e : th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h a s d isc re tio n to fashi on condi t i ons of s uper vi s ed r el eas e and thatt ol l i ng s uper vi s ed r el eas e ca n pr eventan i l l egal l y r etur ni ng defe ndant14 f r o m e n t e r i n g t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s a g a i n . I ts a y s t h a t e v e n i f we fi nd t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d nothave t ol l ed C ol e’ s per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, t he err orw as not pl ai n beca us e of the l ack of Thi r d C i r cui tpr ece dent

. I t ar gues t hateven though t he four cour t s of appe al s t hathave s poken on t h e issue have a l l found t he t ol l i ng t o be err or , t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Si xt h C i r cui thad pr evi ous l yhel d ot herw i s e, i n I s ong , a n d t wo di s t r i ctcour t s , i n V i r gi ni a and i n T exas , fo und s uch t ol l i ng p e rm is s ib le

. See Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Ze

p e da - Domi nguez , 54 5 F. S u p p . 2 d 5 4 7 (E .D . V a . 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed S tates v. C as tr oG onz al ez , N o. 04- 337, 2008 W L 620741 ( S. D

. T ex. M ar . 4, 2 0 0 8 ). T he governm entanal ogi zes t he s i tuat i on her e t o t he fa ct p a t t e r n p r e s e n t e d i n U

n itedS ta tes v . H

a rr is , 471 F. 3d 507 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. T her e, w e found thatt he governm ent ’ s ques t i oni ng a t tr ial a m o u n ted to leg a l er ro r, b u t th a t th e e rro r w a sn ’t p lain be c a u s e t h e i s s u e was c o mpl i c a t e d a n d f a c ts p e c i f

i c , a n d t he Supr eme C our thad y et t o rul e. T he governm ental s o ci t es U ni t ed Stat es v. R i vas , 4 9 3 F

. 3 d 1 3 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , wh e r e we found t hatw hi l e ce r t ai n pol i ce t es t i m onyw as i m p rop er, t he e rro r w a sn ’t p lain b e c a u se “ th e re w a s a t lea st a p o ss ib le l egi t i m at e r eas on fort he t es t i m ony . ” I d. at137. T he govern m en t a l s o ar gues t hatt her e i s no eff ecton C ol e’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s ora mi s carr iage o f j us t i ce. T he governm entdi s t i ngui s hes C ol e’ s s i tuat i on fr om cas es w her e the condi t i on of s uper v i s ed r el eas e ati s s ue w oul d have a n i m m edi at e i m pacton t he def endant as s oon as he w as r el eas ed f ro m p riso n . H e re , th e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s, th e im p a c t o n C o le is f a r m o re re m o te, b e c a u se th e c o n d iti o n w ill o n lya p p lyif C o le15 i s r em ov ed af

t er hi s pri son term , and t he s u p e rvi sed rel ease per i od w i l l begi n onl yi f he ha s r eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es aft er re m o v a l. T h e g o v e rn m e n t sa y s th a t th is is f a r to o sp e c u lativ e to aff ectC ol e’ s s ubs t ant i al ri g h ts ort he fa i r nes s and i nt egr i t yof t he p roceedings. W e have al r eadyconcl uded that t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tor der ed thatC ol e’ s per i od o f su per vi s ed r el eas e be t ol l ed fol l ow i ng hi s r emoval

. W e al s o concl ude thatt he err or w a s p lain : th e s ta tu te s im p lyd o e s n o t allo w a d istric t co u rt to s t op and start s uper vi s ed r el eas e. T he s t atut e pr ovi des fort he s uper vi s ed re l eas e per i od t o s t ar t on t he day t hatt he def endant i s r el eas ed fr om pr i s on; i tcont i nues dur i ng t he per i od of m ont hs ory ear s t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t or der ed i n i t s j udgm ent

. A s not ed above, t he onl yexce pt i on i s w hen the def endanti s i m pr i s oned fo r m o re tha n 3 0 d ay s fo r an o ther c ri m e. 18 U

. S

. C

. § 3 6 2 4 (e). I f C ongr es s i nt ended ther e t o be an exc ept i on forpos t
- r emoval d e f e n d a n ts’ s u p e rv ise d re lea s e , it w o u ld h a v e in c lu d e d th a t in th e s ta tu te

. W e ar e not per s uaded by t he gover nm ent ’ s ar gum ent s as t o t he l ack of T hi r d C i r cui t author i t y . E ven t hough t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt h a d n o p re c e d e n t f ro m o u r co u rt to g u id e its d e c isio n , all of t he otherci r cui t s t hathave a ddr es s ed the i s s ue have found that su ch toll ing is i m p erm iss ib le b ase d u p o n the s tatu tory pr ovi s i ons at i s s ue. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 155 F. 3d 245 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , w e found t hat a di s t r i ct cour tvi ol at ed the s uper vi s ed r el eas e s t atut e w hen i tcondi t ion ed s uper vi s ed r el eas e on r ei mbu r s e me n t o f t h e c o s t o f c o u r t
- a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l

. T he governm entar gued thatt he er r orw as notpl ai n beca us e w e had n o ty e ta d d r e s s e d w h e t h e rs u c h a c o n d i t i o n w a s a p p r o p r i a t e . We16 f o u n d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n t w a s “ w ith o u t m e rit. Nei t h e rt h e a b s e n c e o f c i r c u i tp r e c e d e n tn o rt h e l a c k of c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e iss u e b y a n o th e r co u rt p re v e n ts th e c lea rly e rr o n e o u s a p p lic a tio n o f s ta tu to ry la w f

ro m b e in g p la in e rr o r.” I d. at252. C ol e’ s ar gum ent s i n t hi s cas e ar e eve n s t r ongert han t hos e of t he def

endanti n E vans , b ec au se there w ere fo u r co u rt of appe al s opi ni ons t o pr ovi de gui dance

. Th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s c i t a t i on t o H a rr is and R i vas is unhel pful

. B ot h H

a rr is and R i vas w e r e fa c t
- i nt e ns i ve c ases – t hi s cas e i s not

. T he l egal i s s ue her e does not i nvol ve a com pl ex se t o f f a c ts o r ju d g m e n ts a s to e v id e n tiary m a tters . R a th e r, it i nvol ves an exa m i nat i on o f var i ous s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons re g a rd in g s e n te n c in g . T h e re f o re , H a rr is and Ri v as f

a il to per s uade us tha t w e shoul d fi nd t hatt he err ori n t hi s cas e w as notpl ai n. T he governm ental s o poi nt s t o I s ong , th e S ix th C irc u it cas e t hat w as overrul ed by t he en banc O s s a- G al l egos opi ni on, a n d tw o d istric t co u rt c a se s: Zepeda-D o m inguez and C as tr oG onz al ez . T he governm ent des cr i bes t hes e as t ol l i ng cas es , but bot h cas es s eek t o di s t i ngui s h O s s a- G al l egos . I n ZepedaDomi n g uez , the di s t r i ctcour ts peci fi cal l ys ai d t hati tw as not t ol l i ng t he defe ndant ’ s per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. R ather , t he cour t ’ s j udgm entor der ed thatt he def endantbe r el eas ed fr om t he B u re a u o f

P ri so n s d ir ec tl yto IC E fo r rem o v al. T h e c o u rt re a so n e d th a t b e c a u se su p e rv ise d re lea se d o e s n o t b e g in u n til a defe ndanti s r el eas ed by t he B ur eau of Pr i s ons t o t he s uper vi s i on of a pr obat i on offi cer , a defe ndant w ho i s i m m edi at el yr emoved befor e r epor t i ng t o a p robat i on offi cerw oul d notbegi n t he s uper vi s ed r el eas e per i od unt i l he r eent er s t he U ni t ed St at es and17 r epor t s t o a pr obat i on offi cer . 545 F. Supp. 2d at 549. W hether t he Zepeda- D om i nguez cour teff ect i vel ydi s t i ngui s hed O s s aG al l egos is n o t b e f

o re u s ; e v e n if

th e c a se w e re p ro p e rly deci ded, i ti s nothel pful t o t he governm enther e. I n C astro - G onz al ez , t he di s t r i ct cour t poi nt ed out t hatt he j udgm ent does not t ol l t he t er m of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, butr ather pr ovi des t hatw hi l e the def endantw as o u t o f t he countr yhe w oul d not be s ubj ect t o s uper vi s i on by t he Pr ob ati o n O ffi ce. Th e cour t di s t i ngui s hed O s s a- G al l egos , s ay i ng t hat “[s ] uper vi s i on becomi ng i nact i ve i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om an e x p lici t s ta tem e n t th a t th e su p e rv ise d re lea se ter m itse lf is

‘ t ol l ed. ’ ” 2008 W L 620741, at *4. A gai n, w hethert he di s t r i ct cour teff ect ivel ydi s t i ngui s hed O s s a- G al l egos is n o t f o r u s to deci de, butas w i t h Zepeda- D om i nguez , C as tr o- G onz al ezdoes n o t sup p o rtthe g o v ern m en t’ s arg u m en t tha t the D istri ct C o u rt ’s err orw as not pl ai n. T he gr eat w ei ght of author i t yhol ds t hatt he t o l l i n g t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r to r d e r e d h e r e wa s i mp e r mi s s i b l e , a n d we fi nd t hatt he err orw as pl ai n. W e al s o fi nd t hatt he err oraff ect ed C ol e’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . O ur pr ece dent i s cl eart hata pl ai nl yerr oneous condi t i on of s uper vi s ed r el eas e al w ay s aff ect s a def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al ri g h ts

. See U

ni t ed St at es v. V

oelker , 4 8 9 F

. 3 d 1 3 6 , 1 5 4 (3d C ir

. 2007)

. E ven t hough w e hol d t odayt hatt ol l i ng i s nota condi t i on of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, t he s ame r eas oni ng appl i es – t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s t o ll ing o f su p erv ised relea s e ine v it ab lyaf fe cts C o le’s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , beca us e i tunl aw ful l yext ends t he t i m e thatt he s uper vi s ed re l eas e condi t i ons appl yt o hi m bey ond t he thr ee y ear s of hi s s ent ence . T he s t atut e say s t hathi s s uper vi s ed re lea se p eri od st art s the d ayhe is rel eased from pri son; his18 s ent ence s ay s t hatt he per i od runs fort hr ee y ea r s . T ol l i ng su p e rv ise d re lea se in a m a n n e r no t a llo w e d b yth e sta tu te a f f e c ts C o le ’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts

. T he gove rnm ent ’ s ar gum entt hatC ol e w i l l notbe p re ju d ice d im m e d iate lyb yth e to lli n g , an d th a t th e re f o re h is s ubs t ant i al r i ght s ar e not aff ect ed, i s notper s uas i ve. A condi t i on of s uper vi s ed r el eas e t o be appl i ed aft er a defenda nthas s er ved a l ong pr i s on s ent ence m aybe r emot e, buti f i ti s contr aryt o l aw i ts t i l l aff ect s hi s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . W hi l e w e do notknow now w hethe r C o le w i l l s eek t o r eent ert he U ni t ed St at es aft erhe s e r v e s h i s p r i s o n s e n t e n c e a n d i s r e mo v e d , n o c o u r tc a n k n o w, w hen i tap p li es a condi t i on of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, w hethert he defe ndantw i l l vi ol at e i t

. T he supervi s ed r el eas e s i tuat i on i s by defi ni t i on s pecul at i ve. T hatdoes notpr eventi tfr om aff ect i ng s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts

. I n E vans , w e hel d t hat“i m p os i ng a s ent ence not author i zed byl aw s er i ous l yaff ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , and r eput at i on of t he pr ocee di ngs . ” 155 F. 3d at152. H avi ng d ec ided t odayt hatt he t ol l i ng of C ol e’ s per i od of s uper vi s ed r el eas e dur i ng hi s t i m e of excl us i on fr om t he U ni t ed St at es w as u n l a w f u l , w e w o u l d b e c a s t i n g d o u b t o n t h e f a i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y, and r eput at i on of ourpr ocee di ngs i f w e w er e t o al l ow t ol l i ng w ith o u t s ta tu to ry a u th o ri z a tio n . W e ar e gui ded by our s i s t ercour t s of appe al s , and byour ow n pr ece dent s , t o concl ude t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s t ol l i ng of su p erv ised release fo ll o w ing C o le’s po st- im p ri sonm entr emoval w as pl ai n err or , t hat i taff ect ed C ol e’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and that i taffected t he fai rness and i ntegr i t y of o ur j ud i ci al proceed i ng s.19 I n l i ghtof t he above , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand t he ca s e forr es ent enci ng cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.