### The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States 1 

### District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 95-3460

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Frederick Douglas, * [PUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 18, 1996 Filed: June 24, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.

Frederick Douglas, a former federal inmate, appeals the period o f supervised release imposed by the district court at resentencing. W e 1 affirm.
Douglas was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentenced to 120 month s imprisonment and three years supervised release. United States v. Douglas , 964 F.2 d 738, 739 (8th Cir. 1992). After the district court denied hi s motionto reduce his sentence, we remanded for resentencing according to a clarifying Guidelines amendment. United State s v. Douglas , 64 F.3d 450, 451-53 (8th Cir. 1995).

### -2- At his September 1995 resentencing, Douglas's Guidelines range wa s 27 to 33 months, and the supervised release range was two to three years. Because Douglas had a lready served 46 months in prison, he requested that
no s upervised release be imposed, arguing that the time he had spen t imprisoned beyond the Guidelines range should "qualif[y] as an intensive supervised release." The government requested t hat the court impose three years of supervised release.
The district court sentenced Douglas to 33 months' imprisonment with credit for time served, and two years supervisedrelease. In imposing the two-year term of supervised release, the court stated:

I think that Mr. Douglas should be given some credit for th e fac t that he's actually served a sentence that's probably i n excess of what he would have otherwise have served in computing su pervised release, however, I'm not comfortable not puttin g Mr. Douglas on any supervised release given the fact that h e has a history of committ ing offenses while on probation, and I believe that some period of transition back to the community is appropriate and that a two year term of supervised release is the term to be imposed in this case. Douglas was immediately placed on supervised release.

On app eal, Douglas argues that his imprisonment and supervise d release are separate parts of the same sentence for his offense conduct, and that the excess prison time he served should be credited against his sup ervised release term. Douglas cites cases from other circuits whic h suggest that prison time served in excess of a defendant's revised sentenc e canbe credited against the defendant's term of supervised release. W e have reviewed these cases, and others not cited by the parties, and are no t persuaded they are correct.

### -3- Becaus e Douglas was convicted of a Class C felony, see 18 U.S.C
. § 3559(a )(3), the district court was without authority to impose a sup ervised release term less than two years, see U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2 ) (for Class C felony, supervised release term "shall" be at least tw o years).

The s tatute dealing with the release of a prisoner plainly state s that supervised relea se "commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment," and "d oes not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal . . . crime." Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a) (se ntence may include term of supervised release im posed after imprisonment); United States v. Watkins , 14 F.3d 414, 415 (8th Cir. 1994). We note that this is consistent with th e distinctly different purposes of imprisonment an d supervised release. See United States v. Love , 19 F.3d 415, 417 & n.4 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 11 5 S. Ct. 434 (1994); S. Rep. No. 98-225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3306-08 (discussing purposes of supervised release , one of which is to ease transition into community).

We conclude that the district court properly imposed a two-year term of supervised release. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.