## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3619 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AMILE M. H EA D , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 04 CR 30092

—Wi ll iam D. Stiehl, Ju dge

.
A RG UE D J UNE 4, 2008

— D ECIDED J AN UA RY 15, 2009

Befo re B AUER, W OO D , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Ci r c u i tJu dge . D e fe n d a n tJ a mi l e H e a d c l a i ms the di str i ct c ourti m proper l y s entence d him to se rv e si x m onths i n a “ re si d en ti alr eentry c enter ” a s a di scr eti onar y c ondit i on o fhi s s up er vi sed rele ase. W e a gr ee th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t ex ce ede d i ts a utho r i tyi n i ssu i ng thi s s entence bec ause i t di sr ega rded the pla i n l anguage of 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 83 (d ), w h i c h, at t h e t im e, sp ec ifica lly om i tte d thi s co nd i ti on fro m a l i st ofper m iss ibl e di scr eti ona ry cond i ti ons. There f or e, we vacat e Head’s sente nce2 N o. 07

- 3619 and rem and fo r furtherpro ceed i ngs c onsi ste nt with th i s o pi ni o n.

I . B AC KGR OUND I n 200 4, H ead pl ed gui l ty to posse ss ion ofa fi re ar m by a fel o n. He was s en te nc ed to 3 0 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t follo w ed by th re e y ea rs of su p er vis ed rele as e. W h ile H ead was on s up er vi sed r el eas e, the proba ti on o ffi ce fi l ed a pet i ti on t o re vo ke i t, al l eging tha t Head had vi ol a t e d h i s r e l e a s e t e r ms b y ( a mo n go t he rth i n g s ) c o mm itt in g a d d itio n al c rim es an d fa i lin g t o file m on th ly re p orts w ith th e prob ation offi ce. Th e d istri ct cou rt gr anted the peti ti on a nd r evoked H ead’ s s up er vi sed r el ea se . I t th en se nt en ce d hi m t o 2 4 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm ent, f ol l owed byo ne ye aro fsuperv i sed r el eas e. The di st r i ctco ur t s pec i fi ed th atthe fi r sts i x months o fthe n ew su p er vis ed rele as e t er m h ad to be se rv ed in a “re sidenti alr eentry c ente r. ” Head obj ecte d to thi s co nd i ti on in h is s en te nc i ngmem o r an dum a nd a t th e se nt en cing h ea rin g. H e ra ise s t h e s am e a rg u m en t o n ap p ea l.

II. A N A L Y S IS The onl y i ssue f orus t o de c id e is w hetherthe dist ri ct c ou rth ad th e au th or ity t o or d er , as a d isc re tio n ar y c on d iti o n o fs upe r vi se d r el ease, thatHea d s er ve t i m e i n a r e s i d e n t i a l r e e n t r y c e n t e ra ft e rh i s r e l e a s e fr o m p r i s o n . At the t i m e o f H ead’ s s entencing, 18 U
. S. C. § 3 583( d) defi ned the per m i ssibl e di scr etion ary co nd i ti ons ofsuperv i sedN o. 07

- 3619 3

On O c t obe r 13 , 20 08 , aft erHead ha d bee n c onvi c t ed a nd 1 s e nt e nc e d, Co ng r e s s a m e nd e d the quo t e d p a s s a ge i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3583( d) to read, “any c ond it ion se t f orth a s a d is cre ti onary c ondi t i on ofpr obat i on i n s e ct i o n 3 56 3( b)

. . . . “ (em p h a sis ad d ed ). As a result, the c ro s s - re fer en c e i n 1 8 U. S. C. § 35 83 ( d) no w i nc l udes s ec t i on 35 63 ( b)( 11 ) as a per m i s s ibl e c ondi t i on of supervis ed rel eas e. The i m posit ion or revocati on of supervis ed rel eas e i s part ofthe penalty f or the ori ginal of fense. John so n v. U n i te d S tat es , 52 9 U. S. 69 4, 70 0- 01 ( 20 00 ) . U nd er o ur r ea di ng ofthe s t atut e, the i nc lus i on ofs ec t i on 35 63 ( b) ( 11 ) br oade ns the sc ope of defe nd ants t h a t a re s ub j ectto som e f orm ofconfinem en twhi l e on s uper vi s ed r el ea s e, an d the re is no i ndi c at i on f rom Cong res s thatthi s am endm ent app li es ret roact ivel y. W hen the s t atut e i s s i l en tthe pr es um pt i on agai ns tr et ro ac t i vi t y, pa r t i c ul a r l y i n c r i m i na l c a s e s , di r ect s us t o a ppl y the a m e nd

m en t p ro sp ec tiv el y . Id

. at70 1- 02
. The re f or e, the ne w ver s i on of se ct io n 3 5 8 3 (d ) d o es n o t a p p ly to H ea d ’s ap p ea l. Cf

. U n i te d S tat es v. M al l on , 345 F. 3d 943, 946- 47 (7th Cir. 2003) ( “Procedu ral inn ov atio ns tha t d on ’ t tin k er w ith sub stan ce . . . are com p atib le wi th the e x po s tf a c t o c l a us e . S e c t i on4 0 1 ( d) o fthe P ROTECT A CT is proced ural only and thu s m ust be used on this app eal

. ”) (c i t at i on om i t t ed)

. The re l eva nt que s t i on befor e thi s c our t is w he the r the p re-am en d m en t ve rsion of section 358 3(d ) sho u ld be const rued to all ow the i m posit ion ofs ect ion 3 5 6 3 ( b)( 11) as a conditi on of supervis ed rel eas e. re l eas e byi ncor pora ti ng byr efer en ce “ any c ondit i on s et f o r th a s a di s c r e t i o na r y c o nd i t i o n o fp r o b a t i o n i n [ 1 8 U. S
. C. §] 3563(b)(1) th roug h ( b )(10) and (b)(12) th roug h (b)(20), an d an y ot h er co n d itio n it co n s i d e r s t o b e a p p ro p ria te .” 1 T h e p ar tie s a gr ee th at th e re sid en tia l ree n tr y c e n t e r in whi c h He a d wa s s e nt e nc e d t o s e r v e fe l lwi thin the s c o pe of18 U
. S. C. § 3 563(b) ( 11), wh i ch pro vi des thata perso n4 N o. 07

- 3619 “r esi de at, or parti ci pate i n the prog ra m of, a c om m unity c o r r e c t i o ns f a c i l i t y ( i nc l ud i ng a f a c i l i t y maint a i ne d or und erco ntra ct t o the Bure au o f P risons) f oral lo r part of the t er m of proba ti on. ” A l though Congr ess l ate r am ended se ct i o n 3 58 3( d) t o i nc l ude 3 56 3(b) ( 11 ) , we i nt erp re t th e s t a t ut e a s i te xi s t e d wh e n He a d wa s s e nt e nc e d. The pr o bl em he r e i s th ats ect i o n 3 56 3(b) ( 11 ) i s th e o ne di s c r e t i o na r y c o nd i t i o n o fp rob a t i o n tha ts e c t i o n 3 5 8 3 ( d) did noti nc or p or ate byr efer ence. Thi s g l ar i ng o m i ssi on su gge sts the dist ri ct c ourtl acke d the autho ri ty to or der that H ead ser ve ti m e i n a re si denti al re entr y cent er as part ofhi s new ter m o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. The go ver nm ent t ri es to ci rcum vent thi s probl em by pu s hinga n o nt e xtua l inte r pr e t a t i o n o fs e c t i o n 3 5 8 3 ( d) base d o n that provi si on’ s hi sto ry . The U ni ted S tat es Se n te n c in g C om m iss ion G u id elin es M an u al (U .S.S.G .) sum m ar i zes the hi sto ri calbac kdro p f orthi s a rgum ent: Subse cti on( b) ( 11) o fse cti on 3 563 of ti tl e 18, U ni ted S t a t e s Co de , i s e xp l i c i t l y e xc l ud e d [ fr o m 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 583( d)] as a condi ti on o f s up er vi sed r el eas e. Befo r e th e en ac tmento fthe Anti te r r o r i sm an d Ef f ec t i v e D e a th P e n a l t y Ac to f1 9 9 6 [ AE DP A] , t he condi ti on a t 1 8 U.S
. C. § 3 563(b) ( 11) w as i nter m i ttent c o nfi ne men t
. T he Ac tde l e t e d 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 563(b) ( 2) , autho ri zi ng the paym ent o fa fi ne as a co ndi ti o n o fpr o bation, a nd r ede si g na te d the re m ai ni ng co nd i ti ons ofpro bati on s et f or th i n 18 U .S.C . § 3 5 63 (b ); in te rm itt en t c on fin em en t is now se t for th atsubse cti on (b) ( 10) , wh er eas subsect i on (b) ( 11) se ts f or th the cond i ti on o fr esi dencyN o. 07

- 3619 5 at a c om m u n ity co rre c t i o n s fa c ility . I t w ou ld ap p ea r th at int er m itt en t c on fin em en t n ow is author i zed as a condi ti on o fsuperv i sed r el eas e and that c om m unity c onfi nem ent no w i s no t author i zed as a condi ti on o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. H owever, t h er e i s s om e quest i on a s t o w hether C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d th i s r e s u l t
. Al th o u g h [ AE DP A] re desi gnate d the r em ai ni ng par agr aphs ofse cti on 356 3 ( b ) , i t f a i l e d t o mak e the c o r r e s po nd i ngr edes i g na ti o ns i n 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 58 3( d) , r eg ar di ng disc re ti onar y c ondit i ons ofsuperv i sed r el eas e. U. S
. S
. G. § § 5D1
. 3( e) ( 1) ( no te ) , 5 F 1. 1 ( 20 07)
. T he g o ve r nm ent c laim s that Congr ess m ade a “cl er i caler ro r” by f ai l i ng to am end sect i on 3583 ( d) w hen i t a m ended secti on 3563 ( b) vi a AE DP A
. I t c on tend s that we shoul d cor re ct Con g r es s’ s o ve r si g htb y i nt er pr et i ngthe pr e- amendment ver si on o fse cti on 3 583( d) t o allow di str i ct c ourt s t o or der defendants i nto com m unity c onfi nem ent a s a disc re ti onar y c ondit i on o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. This i s a n i ssue offi rs t i m press ion fo r u s. The o ther ci rcui t cou rt s that hav e a l re ady deci ded the i ssue have ad op te d th e g ov er n m en t ’ s p ro p os ed int er p re ta tio n . See U nite d States v. G ilpatri ck, 548 F.3d 479 , 482-8 4 ( 6 t h Cir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. D el Ba rr io , 427 F.3d 280 , 283 (5th C ir. 20 05 ); U nite d States v. D ’Am ario , 41 2 F.3d 25 3, 25 6- 57 (1s t C ir. 20 05 ); U nited St a t e s v. G riner, 35 8 F
. 3d 979, 98 1- 82 (8t h C ir. 20 04 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bahe, 20 1 F.3 d 11 24, 11 36 (9t h C ir. 20 00 ); see also Un i t e d S t a t e s v . A r i as , 1 5 3 F e d. A p p x . 577, 579 (11 th C ir. 20 05 ) (u n p u b l i sh ed ); U nited St at e s v. H uf

f m an , 146 F ed

. A p p x. 939, 941-43 (10th Cir.6 N o. 07

- 3619 2005 ) ( unp ubl i shed). In deter m i ni ng wh etherto f ol l ow thei r l ead, w e begin w i th the pla i n m eani ng of secti on 35 8 3 ( d ) a n d th e n e x a mi n e th e r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d the othe r ci rcui ts’ deci si ons.

A . Th e pl ai n m ean in g ofsec t i on 358 3( d) pr ovi ded tha t a d efen d an t c a n n o t b e p laced i n a com m u n ity con fi n em en t p rogr am as a d isc re tion ary con d it i on ofsuperv i sed r el ease . T he govern m en t m ay be correc t tha t C ong ress overl oo ked se cti on 3 583( d) when i t pa ssed A ED PA
. But that d oe sn ’t m ea n w e c an (or s h ou ld ) d o a n yt h in g a b ou t t h is er ro r. J ud ges do notr ead betw een the l i nes when a st atu te ’s t ex t is c lea r an d it s st ru c tu re is co h er en t. See Jas kol s ki v. D aniel s , 427 F.3d 456, 461-64 (7th Cir. 2005). A nd there w as no th ing un clear or inc ohe rent abou t section 3583 (d ): i t s pe c i fi c a l l y d e c l i n e d t o p r o v i d e c o u r t s wi th the author i ty to or der defendants i nto com m u ni ty confi nem en t progra m s as a d iscretionary con d iti on of sup ervis ed rele as e. E ve n if C on g r e s s m ad e a m ist ak e,“ ‘[i]t is be y o nd o urpr o vinc e to r esc ue Co ng r es s fr o m i ts dr afting er r o r s, a nd t o pr o vi de f o rwhatwe m ight th ink

. . . i s th e prefer re d r esul t. ’ ” La m ie v. U nited Sta tes Tr. , 54 0 U.S
. 52 6, 542 ( 2004 ) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gr ande rs on , 511 U
. S. 39, 68 ( 1994 ) (conc urring op inion)). The g o ve r nm en t m aint ains , ho wev er, tha t r ea di ngthe pre- am endm ent v er si on o fse cti on 3 583( d) a ccor ding to i ts pla i n m eani ng would l ead to an “ absurd” re sul t that w e m ust a voi d

. See Tread w a y v . Ga tew a y C hev rol et O ldsm obil e, Inc. , 36 2 F
. 3d 971, 97 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. The go v-N o. 07

- 3619 7

e r nme ntc l a i ms tha tb e cause s e c t i o n 3 5 8 3 ( d) a l l o we d a dist ri ct c ourtto o rderthata defe nd ant l i ve at a r esi denti al f ac i l i tytha t pro vi des o nl y dr uga nd a l co ho lt r ea tment ( per sect i on 3 563(b) ( 9) ) , i t would be illogi calnotto r ead the pr ovi si on a s a l so perm i tting a dist ri ct c ou rt t o or der that a defendant l i ve at a r esi denti alf aci l i ty that com bi nes drug and al coholt re atm ent with other prog ra m s, such as em p loym en t (per sect ion 3563(b)(11)). T he govern m en t m iscons tru es th e scop e of th e “abs urd ity” exc ep tion. A statu te m igh t b e absu rd becau se it’ s l i ng ui st i ca l l y i nc o he r en t; th at ’ s so m ethi ngwe ca n fi x. But when a st atut e’ s l an g ua g e i s cl ea r, we won’ t “c o r r ec t” the sta tute si m plybec ause i t m ake s a bad subs tanti ve choi ce. See Jas kol s ki, 42 7 F
. 3d at 462. The er ro r m ust be m uch mor e s e v e r e . As the T e nth Ci r c ui th a s h e l d: One cl ai m i ng tha t the pla i n, unequivo call anguage of a statu te p rod uc es an a b su rd result m us t surm o unta f o r m i dab l e hur dl e. . . . [ W ] e ca n a ppl y the doctr i ne o nl y when i t would have bee n unthi nkab le for C o n g r es s t o h av e in te n d ed th e re su lt com m anded bythe w or ds ofthe sta tute

— that i s, w hen the re sul t w oul d be so bi zar re thatCongr ess c ou ld n oth av e in te n d ed it .
. . . R o bbin s v. C hro nister, 43 5 F
. 3d 1238 , 12 41 ( 10th Cir
. 20 06) ( e n b a nc ) ( i nt e r na lquo t a t i o n mar k s o mi t t e d)

. T hi s a pp ro ac h to st a t u t or y in te rp re ta tio n is h ar d ly n ew . See Sturges v. C rown ins hiel d, 1 7 U .S. 122, 202-03 (1819) ( M arsh all, C .J.) (p lain m ea n in g of a p ro vis ion sh ou ld ap p ly unle ss “the absur dity a nd i nj usti ce o fapply i ng the p ro vi si o n t o the c as e, woul d b e so mons tr o us , tha t al lman-8 N o. 07

- 3619 k i nd wou l d, wi th o uthe si tation, uni te i n r ej ec tingthe ap p li cation ”). T he “error” thatthe gove rnm en t com p lai ns of he re w as not a l i ngui sti c o ne. A nd apply in g th e s tatute a s wr i t t e n do e s no t l e a d t o a r e s ul t tha t i s s o bi zar re o r shock i ng a s t o a l l o w the di s t r i c t c o ur t the di s c r e t i o n to fi x i t. S o the o nl y a cceptable am endm ent t o the s tatute is th e o n e t h at ca m e from C on gr es s, n otfrom u s. See Lam ie, 540 U
. S. at54 2.

B . Th e o t he r c i r c ui t c o urt s ’ i nt e rpr e t a t i o ns o ft he p r e - a m e n d m e n ts e c t i o n 3 5 8 3 ( d) do no tpe r s ua de us t o devi at e f r om the pl ai n la nguage of t hat pr o v i s i o n. The Fi rs t, Fi fth, S i xth, Eigh th, and N i nth Cir cui ts have issued pu bli sh ed opi n ion s ad op ting th e govern m en t’s ar gum ent that despi te the pl ai n l anguage o fse cti on 35 83 ( d) , a distric t co ur t co ul d ha ve o r der ed th ata de fen dan t s er ve i n a c om m unity c onfi nem ent pr ogr am as a d isc r e t i o n a r y c o n d i t i o n o fh i s s u p e r v i s ed rele as e. G ilpatri ck, 54 8 F .3d 47 9, 48 2-8 4; D el B arri o , 427F.3d at28 3; D ’Am ario , 41 2 F .3d at25 6-5 7; G riner, 358 F.3d at98 1-8 2; Bahe, 2 01 F. 3d at 1136
. The Tenth an d E l eve nth Cir cui ts have iss u ed u n p u b lish e d o rd er s h old in g th e s am e. Ari as , 15 3 Fe d . A p p x . at 5 79 ; H uf f m an , 14 6 F ed. A pp x. at94 2- 43. T h e F irs t, Fift h, Six th , T e n t h, an d E lev en th C irc u it dec i si o ns r es t en ti r ely o n the Ni nth Ci r cui t’ s r ea so ni ng i n Bahea nd the Ei g hth Ci r cui t’s re as o ni ngi n G riner, so we focu s o n tho se t wo c as es . In Bahe, th e N in th C irc u itN o. 07

- 3619 9 f ound that i t coul d no t re l y on the pla i n l anguage of secti on 3 583( d) b ecause o fan “ i nter nalam bi gui ty” : A l though the absence ofa re fer ence i n § 3583( d) t o subse c tion ( 11) sugg est s that a di str i ct c ourtl acks th e au th o rity to im p ose th is cond iti on of sup ervi sed r el eas e, subse c ti on ( 3) o f§ 3583 ( d) s ugges ts that a di str i ct c ourthas such author i ty. S ubsect i on ( 3) s ta te s th ata s en te nc i ngc o ur t m ayi m po se a ny co ndi ti o n o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se tha t “i s co ns i st en t wi tha ny per tine ntpol i cyst at ement s i ss ue d by th e S e nt e nc i ngCo mm i s s i o n pu r s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 994 ( a )
. . . . ” T he S e nt e nc i ngCo mm i s s i o n has prom ulg ate d one pol i cy sta tem ent a nd a cor re spo ndi ngg ui del i ne tha t ar e “p er tine nt ” to the re sol uti on o fthi s ca se. Both e xpressly a uthor i ze a di str i ct c ourtto i m pose com m unity c onfi nem en t as a c o ndi ti o n o fs upe r vi se d re l ea se f o l l o wi ng im p ris on m en t . .
. . He nc e , adi str i ct c ourt ’ s a uthor i ty und ersubse cti on ( 3) of§ 3 5 8 3 ( d) a pp e a r s t o b e a to dds wi th i ts au th ority und er the portion of § 3583 (d) tha t refers to the subsect i ons of § 3563 ( b)

. Because ofth is i nt e r na li nc o ns i s t e nc y, the me a ningo f§ 3 5 8 3 ( d) is unc lear. Bahe, 20 1 F
. 3d at 1128

- 30. The co urt used thi s “ i nconsi stenc y ” a s a n o pe ningt o l o o kb e y o nd the t e xto fs e cti on 35 83 ( d) a nd a do pt th e i nt er pr etat i o n tha t th e g o ve r nm en t p ro p os es h er e. Id. at11 30- 34. W e di sa g r ee wi th Baheand concl ud e there was no s uch i nconsi ste ncy in s ecti on 3 583( d). That pro vi si on s tat ed i n re l evantpart :10 N o. 07

- 3619

W e do not b el ie ve ( and the gov ernm ent d oes not cont end) that 2 the c a t c h- a l l pr ov i s i onr e c a ptur e s the c on duc tc ov e r e d b y s ec t i on 35 63 ( b) ( 11 )
. Our c onc l us i on s t em s from the f am ous m a xi m , e xp r e s s i o uni us e s te xc l us i o a l t e r i us ( the ex pre s s i on ofon e th in g im p lie s th e e xc lu sio n o f an o th er ). See, e . g. , In reG l obeBl dg. M at er i al s, Inc. , 46 3 F .3d 631 , 63 5 (7th C ir. 20 06 ). T ha t C on g ress expres sl y e xcl ud ed com m unity confinem ent as a disc ret ionary 

### (continued...) The cour t m ay or der, as a furtherco nd i ti on o f su p er vis ed rele as e, to th e e x t en t t h at su c h co n d iti on

— . . . ( 3) i s consi ste nt with any per ti nent pol i cy st a t e me n t s i s s u e d b y th e S e n t e n c i ng Co mm i s s i o n pu r s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 994(a); any c ondit i on setf or th as a disc re ti onar y c ondit i on ofpro bati on in sec ti on 3 563(b)(1) thr ough (b) ( 10) an d (b)(1 2) t h ro u gh (b)(2 0) a n d a n y o th er co n d iti on i t co nsi ders to be a pp ro pri ate
. There can be a n am bi gui ty onl y i fo ne r eads s ecti on 35 83 ( d) ( 3) d isj unc ti ve l y wi ththe di sc r et i o na r y c o ndi ti o ns ofpro bati on l i ste d at the end of the sect i on. But the sta tute su gg es ts th es e p ro vis ion s s h ou ld be rea d co nj u n c tiv ely . I t sta ted thata disc re ti onar y condit i on ofsuperv i sed r el eas e w as perm i ssibl e o nl y i fi t was co nsi ste nt with the S entenci ng Com m i ssi on’ s pol i cy sta tem ents and i fwas l i ste d i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3563 ( b) ( 1)

- ( b) ( 10) , ( b) ( 12)

- ( b) ( 20) ( or w as capture d bythe cat ch

- al lpr o vi si o n, “ an y o th erc o ndi ti o n i t co nsi der [ ed] t o b e appr o pr i at e” )
. S o e ven i fthe S en te nc i ng 2N o. 07

- 3619 11



### (...continued) c ondi t i on ofs uper vi s ed re l ea s e i m pl i es thati tdi d notwant cou rts to u se the ca tch-all p ro v ision as an altern ate b asis fo r im p o sin g th is c o n d i t i o n . S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . M ills , 186 F. Sup p. 2d 965, 970 ( E.D. W is . 20 0 2 ). B u t see Bahe, 201 F. 3d at 1134- 35. Com m i ssi on s ai d that c om m u n ity confi nem ent c oul d be i m posed as a disc re ti onar y c ondit i on o fsuperv i sed r el eas e, the o m i ssi on o fse cti on 3 563(b) ( 11) pre vente d dist ri ct c ou rt s fro m im p os in g th at co n d itio n . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. M il ls , 186 F. Sup p . 2d 965, 969 (E
. D
. W is. 2002). M or eov er, the “i nconsi ste ncy” that B a heco m pla i ned of w as ev entual l y r eso l ved, as the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on l ate r re cogni zed that the text of sect i on 3583 ( d) a pp ear ed to excl ud e co m m unity c onfi nem ent a s a p er m i ssibl e di scr etio n ar y c on d itio n of su p e r v ise d rele as e. SeeU. S
. S
. G. §§ 5D1. 3( e) ( 1) ( note ) , 5F 1. 1 ( 2007 )
. S o Bahe ’ s r eas on for l o o k i ngb ey o nd s ec ti o n 3 58 3( d) ’ s pl ain l an g ua g e i s no l onge r vi abl e. Tur n in g t o G riner, the Ei g hth Ci r cui t ch ar ac te r i ze d the change to the pr obat i on s tatute a s a “bo okk eepi ng change ” an d r el i ed o n a “ wel l

- se tt l ed ca no n” o fs ta tu to r y c o nst r uct i o n: W h er e o n e s ta tu te ad op ts th e p ar tic u lar p ro visi on s ofano therbya speci fi c and descr i pti ve r efer en ce t o the s ta tu te o rpr o vi si o ns a do pte d, the effe c t is th e sam e as th ou gh th e sta tu t e o r p ro visi ons adopted had been incor pora ted bo dil y into th e ado ptings ta tu te
. . . . S uch a d opti o n t ak es the12 N o. 07

- 3619 sta tute as i t exi sts at the ti m e o fadopti on a nd does no t i nc l ude su bs eque nt addi ti o ns o rmodi fi ca ti o ns by the statute so take n unle ss i t doe s s o by express in te n t. T h e w eig h t o f au th or ity h old s t h is ru le

. . . re specting two se parat e a cts appli cabl e where, as he r e, o ne s ec ti o n o fa s ta tute r efer s to a no the rs e c t i o n whi c h a l o ne i s a men de d. G riner, 3 58 F .3d at98 2 ( quoti ng Hasse ttv. Wel ch , 30 3 U. S
. 3 0 3 , 3 1 4 (1 938 ) ( i nt e r na lquo t a t i o n mar k s o mi t t e d) ( quoti ng 2 Suthe r l and on St at ut ory Cons t ruc t i on , 78 7- 88 ( 2d ed . 190 4) (fo ot n ot es om itt ed ))); see also Kend a ll v. U n i ted Sta tes ex re l. Sto k es , 37 U
. S. 524, 625 (18 38) (not i ng tha t s tat e statutes tha t had ad op ted British stat ut es by referenc e w ere
“ c o n s i d e r e d a s r e fe r r i n gt o th e l a w ex i s t i n ga tth e t i me ofadopti on”)
. A pp l yi ng thi s ca non ( w e’ l lr eferto it as the “ cr o ss - r efer en ce c an o n” ) , the Ei g hth Ci r cui t co ncl ud ed t h at “§ 35 83( d) incl ud ed the l anguage o fsubse cti o n (b) ( 12 ) a s i t was the n wr i tt ent o p er m i t co m m uni ty- cor re cti ons confi nem ent. ” G riner, 35 8 F
. 3d at 982. U nl i ke G riner, h o we v e r, we do n o tr e a d Hasse ttas cre a t i nga c a t e g o r i c a lr ul e tha tc o mpe l s c o ur t s t o a l wa ys re ad st at u to ry cr os s-r efe re n c es as p o in tin g t o th eir or igin al t a rg et s. In d ee d , su c h a ru le w ou ld m ak e litt le sense , as “[ w ] ri ti ng a cro ss- re fer ence ra therthan re p e a t i n g t h e t ex t t o b e in c or p or at ed is u se fu l p re c ise ly be ca us e th e ta r g etmay be amende d. A po i nt er per m i ts the effect ofa cha ng e in one sec tion to prop agate to other, re l ate d, sect i ons w i thout re w ri ti ng al lo fthose re l ate d se ct i o ns . ” Her rm ann v. Cencom Ca bleAssocs
. , Inc. , 97 8 F
. 2d 978, 983 (7th C ir. 1992).N o. 07

- 3619 13

In the 70 years s ince Has settw as d eci ded , the Sup rem e Court 3 ha s n e ve r c i t e d Has settf or the cro ss- referen ce can on . Ind eed , in 

### (continued...) R at h er , Hasse tt tu r ne d t o the c r o ss - r efer en ce c an o n ( an d tw o o the r s ) o nly a ft e rfi nd i ngtha tthe me a ningo fa ta x provi si on i t was i nter preting w as “ n ot so fre e fro m doubt as to pre cl ud e inquir y c once rn in g the l egi sl ati ve pu rpos e. ” Hasse tt, 303 U
. S. at 309. I n parti cul ar, i t w as n otcle ar fr o m t h e s ta tu to ry te x t w h et h er th e t ax p ro visi on a pp l i ed re tr oac ti vel y a n d w h ethera cro ss- re fer ence to the prov isi on referred t o i t s ori ginal text or its l ateram en d ed lan gu ag e. See i d. at30 8- 14. The Courtr eso rt ed to canons onl y b ecause the sta tute did not h ave a cl ear m ea n in g on its fac e. See i d. a t 31 3 ( “Reso rti s had to c a n o n s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a s a n a i d i n a s c e r t a i n i ng t he i nten t o fthe l egi sl atur e. I t m ay occurthatthe i ntent i s s o cl ea rtha t no s uchr es o r t sh o ul d b e i nd ulged

. . . . ”)
. And the Cour t has since r em i nd ed us thatwe shou l d not loo k b ey on d th e la n gu ag e o fa st at u te w h en its te x t is p lain an d its m an d at e p lau sib le. S e e, e . g. , D o dd v. U nited Sta tes , 545 U
. S. 353, 359 (2005 ) (“ [W ]h e n [a] statu te’s l anguage i s pl ai n, the sol e functi on o fthe cour ts

— at l eas t w he re the d isposition req uired by th e tex t is not absu rd

— i s t o enf or ce i t a ccor ding to i ts ter m s. ” ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om itt ed ) (firstalt er at ion in o rig in al)); Salina s v. U nited S t a t es , 5 22 U. S
. 5 2, 5 7 ( 19 97 ) ( “Co ur ts i n a ppl y i ng c r i mi n a ll a ws g e n e r a l l y mu s tf o l l o w th e p l a i n a n d u n a mbi g uo us mean i ngo fthe s tatut o r y l an g ua g e. Onl y the m os t e x tr ao rd in ar y s h ow in g of c on tr ar y i n t en tio n s in the l egi sl ati ve hi sto rywil lj usti fy a departur e fro m th at langu age.” ( intern al quo tation m arks om itted ))
. 314 N o. 07

- 3619



### (...continued) a rec en t c ase, the C ou rt d id no t ap p ly a p resu m p tion tha t a f ac i al ly am bi guous s el f

- re fer en c e withi n a Tr uth i n Le ndi ng Actpr ov ision poi nt ed t o the or i gi nal, una m en ded ve rs i on of th e p ro v isi o n . S ee K oons Bu i ck Ponti ac G M C, Inc. v . Nigh , 543 U. S. 50 , 60 -64 ( 20 04 )
. I ns t ea d, the Cour tr el i ed o n “ c om m on se n se ” to re a ch th a t c o n cl u sio n . Id. at63
. So Koo ns r a i s e s s o me quest ion wh ethe r Has sett ’ s c ro s s - re fer en c e c ano n r et ai ns v ita lit y to d a y . B u t see St a t e Oi l Co
. v . K han , 5 2 2 U.S. 3, 20 ( 1997) (“[I]t i s this C ou rt’ s pr ero g ativ e alo ne to ov erru le on e of its p re ce d en ts.” ). M o r e o v e r, i n o urs o l e de ci s i o n whe r e we c i t e d Hasse tt f or t h e cro ss- re fer ence canon, we proce eded i n that m anner onl y b ecause the sta tutory t ext was am bi guous. See D i r . , O

f f i ceof Worke rs ’Com pe ns at i on Prog ram s v. Peab ody Coal Co. , 55 4 F
. 2d 310 ( 7th Ci r. 19 77)
. The case i nvol ved a w el tero fcr oss - re fer ences i n the Feder alCoal M i ne He a l th a nd S a fe t y Ac t
. We a na l y z e d H a sset t as p art ofa l engthyexpositi on o n w hethera cer tain cr oss re fer ence w as a “s peci fi c” r efer ence

— on e t h at sp ec ifica lly re f e r s t o a t a r g e t s t a t ut e a nd t a k e s the t a r g e tas or i gi nal l y e nacted

— or a “g ener al ” r efer ence

— one that re fer s t o the l aw m or e gen er al l y a nd ta kes a tar get st at u te as am en d ed

. Id. at32 2-3 1; see also i d. at3 23 ( no ting th at “a fac i a l l y sp ec ific leg isla tiv e re fer en c e m ay , in fac t, c on st itu te a g en er al leg isla tiv e re fer en c e” ); He r r m ann , 978 F.2d a t 9 83 (noting that few cross-reference s are spe ci fi c)
. M o r e i m po r ta nt l y, we r ea ch ed th i s i ss ue onl y a fterfi rs t co ncl ud i ng tha t the st atuto ryte xt was i ncoher ent a s wri tte n

— f o re xa m pl e, many o fthe r el ev antN o. 07

- 3619 15

c ro ss -re fer en c es p oin te d ou t in to th e et h er . See Peab ody C o a l, 5 5 4 F
. 2 d a t3 2 0

- 2 1 ( no t i ngr e fe r e nc e s t o r e pe al ed sta tutory pr ovi si ons)
. W e ind i cate d that we w oul d not have turned t o Hasse tto r othe r i nter preti ve canons had th e tex t b e e n c l ea r. Se ei d. at32 1-2 2 (t u rn in g t o “ ex tr in sic aid s t o s ta tu to ry co n s t r u c tio n ” b ec au se th e c ou rtco u ld n ot“g ive fu ll li te ra l effe c t t o th e w or d s a p p ea rin g in th e origina l an d in th e am en d ed i nc orp orating p rovisi on” ). Sim ilar l y, o therco urts have tur ned to Hasse tto nl y a fter fi rs t fi nd i ng a fac ial defe ct with the cro ss- re fer ence or ta rg etst at u te be in g in te rp re te d

. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. O a tes , 42 7 F. 3d 1086 , 10 89 ( 8th Ci r. 20 05) ( cor re cti ng a f aci al l y defecti ve sen te nci ng guidel i ne pro vi si on that re fer re d to th e w ro n g sta tu to ry s u b s e c tio n ); D i r . , O f f i ceof Worke rs ’Com pe ns at i on Prog ram s v. E. Coal Corp. , 56 1 F. 2d 632, 635- 41 ( 6th Cir
. 1977 ) (fol l owing Peab ody Coal ina sim ilarca se ); D ir., O f f i ceof Worke rs ’Com pe ns at i on Prog ram s v. Al a. By- Prod uc t s Corp. , 56 0 F
. 2d 710, 71 5 ( 5th C ir. 19 77 ) (sa m e); K rol ickC o ntra ctin g C o . v. B enefits R eview Bd. , 558 F.2 d 6 85 , 686 -88 (3d C ir. 19 77 ) (sa m e); cf. C a rriers C ontainerCo u ncil, Inc. v. M obil e S.S. Assoc. , Inc. , 94 8 F. 2d 12 19, 12 25 ( 11th Cir
. 19 91) ( re l yi ng i n parto n Hasse ttto rej ect a claim that a provision g overn ing intere s ti mp l i c i t l y i n c o r p o r a t e d a p r o v i s i o n g o v e r n i n gc o mp ou n d in g of in te re st ); U n it ed States v. Sm ith , 68 3 F
. 2d 12 36 , 1 23 8 n. 8, 1 23 9- 40 ( 9th Ci r . 1 98 2) ( enb an c) ( not i ng th at “t h e Y ou th C or re c tio n s A c t d oe s n otm es h n ice ly w i th the Probati on Act” befor e co ncl ud i ng tha t a cr oss re fer ence fro m the f or m erst atute to the l att erwas a gen eral r eferenc e (in t erna l qu otation m arks om itted )) ; Lon gm i rev. Se a Dri l li ng Corp
. , 61 0 F
. 2d 1342 , 13 52 ( 5th16 N o. 07

- 3619 C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) ( a d o p t i n go u rr a t i o n a l e i n P e ab ody Coal f or a d ifferent sta tu tory sch em e). On occasi on, w e hav e a l so “co rr ecte d” cro ss- re fer ences w i thout ci ti ng Has s et t . But these cor re cti ons have gener al l y b een l i m i ted to te chnic alr epai r w or k, such as fi xi ng f aci al l y defecti ve cro ss- re fer ences that poi nt to unrel ate d provi si ons and renderstatuto rysche m es i ncoh e r e n ta s wr i t t e n. S ee, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Paul, 54 2 F
. 3d 596, 60 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “A l thoug h the sta tute cro ssr efer en ces s ec ti o n 3 56 3( a) ( 4) , tha t i s a m i st ak e, f o rthe inten d ed cross-reference obviously is to section 3563(a)(5), a par al l elpr o vi si o n c o nc erni ngmandat o r y d rug te st i ng as a co nd i ti on ofp robati on. ”)
. Forexam ple , we i nter prete d an ERIS A cr oss - re fer ence as poi nti ng to a n unam ended tar getafterwe f ound that fol l owing the c ro ss- refer ence as w ri tte n w oul d lea d t o a “ nonsensi cal ” a nd “bi zar re ” re su lt. He r r m ann , 97 8 F
. 2d at 981- 82. A nd m or e r ecent l y, w e co rr ecte d C ongr ess ’ s f ai l ure to up date a stat u te that cri m i nal i zed i m prop er r eco rdkee ping aftera provi si on i t r e fe r r e d t o ( s e c t i o n 3 5 5 (j ) ) wa s r e n u mb e r e d a n d t he n e w s e c t ion 35 5(k ) d id n otrefe r to rec or d ke ep in g a t a ll. U ni ted State s v. Bhut ani, 266 F.3d 661 , 665-68 (7th C ir. 2001 )
. The Su prem e Cour t has al so i nd i cate d that c ourt s can turn to a statu te’s h is t o r y t o i d en tify the target of a fac ially am b igu ou s re fer en c e. Se eKoons Bui ckPont i ac GM C, Inc . v. N igh , 5 43 U. S. 50 , 6 0- 64 ( 20 04 ) ( det er m i ni ng th ata n a m bi g uo us r efer en ce t o “ th i s su bpa r ag r aph” p ointed t o th e sub sect ion at the tim e of th e statu te’s en actm en t). So w e can certainly correct cross -referen ces w he n it’s cl earfro m the sta tutory t ext that there i s som e k i nd o fN o. 07

- 3619 17

Eve n ifth e r e we r e a n y a mbi g u i t y i n s e c t i o n 3 5 8 3 ( d) , we 4 w ou ld likely con stru e it in favo r of the d efend an t pe r the ru le o f len ity
. Se e, e . g. , U n ited St at es v. Thom pso n , 484 F. 3d 877, 881 (7 th C ir . 20 0 7 ). er r o r . Buttha t’ s no t w ha t we h av e he r e. The r e was no am bi gui ty about the obj ect ofo ur cr oss - re fer en c e (1 8 U .S.C . § 35 83 (d ) )
. A n d t h er e w as n o log ica l or lin gu ist ic i nc o ns i st en cyb etwee n the c r o ss-re fer en ce a nd the t a r g e ts t a t ut e ( 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 6 3 (b ) ( 1 )

- ( 1 0 ) , ( 1 2 )

- ( 2 0 ) )
. Ind e e d, th e st atut o r y sch eme t r ac k ed per fec tly wel la s wri tt en : d i s t r i c tc o u r t s c o u l d n o ts e n t e n c e d e fe n d a n t s t o c o mm u n ity co n fin em en t a s a d isc re tio n ar y c on d i t i on of th eir su per vi se d r el ea se . An o dd r es ul t, pe r ha ps, b utha r dl y o ne th at is ab su rd

. See Jas kol s ki, 4 27F
. 3d at4 62 ( “T o daythe an ti- ab su r di tyc an o n i s l i ng ui st i c r athe rtha n s ubs ta ntive .”); s ee also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo cke, 47 1 U.S
. 84, 93

- 94 ( 1985 ) ( i nter preting a st at ute that r equi re d a fi l i ng to be “pri orto Decem ber31 o fea ch ye ar ” a s s ett ing a Dec embe r3 0 dea dl i ne , e ve n thou g h Co ng r es s m i g ht ha ve inten d ed an en d -of-the-year dead line ). Ind eed , there i s no o bj ec ti ve r ea so n b as ed o n the st atut o r y t ex t to c o ncl ude tha t the r e was a ny “ er r o r ” he r e. And we do no t “fi x” w hat we cannoto bj ecti vel y i d en ti fy a s br oke n, bec ause “w hat j ud ges deem a ‘ cor re cti on’ o r ‘ fi x’ i s fro m ano ther perspect i ve a del iber ate i n te rfer ence w i th the l egi sl ati ve pow erto choo se w hat m ake s fora goo d rul e. ” Ja s kol s ki, 427 F. 3d at 462. 4 Bec au se s ec ti o ns 3 58 3( d) a nd 35 63 ( b) w er e una m bi g uo us and fi t t oge therco here ntl y, o ur j ob i s s i m plyto foll ow18 N o. 07

- 3619 the l aw as wri tte n. S o w e r ej ect the g ove rnm ent’ s invi tati on t o c ircum vent the pl ai n l anguage o fthes e s tatutes by invoking the cross -ref e r e nc e can on. A nd w e the refore c on c lu d e t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rte x c ee d ed its au th or ity in ord ering tha t H ead serve in a residen tial reen try prog ra m duri ng hi s new ter m o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. Because thi s deci sion cr eat es a co nfl i ct a m ong ci rcui ts, it w as circ u lat ed to all ac t i v e ju d ge s u n d er C irc u it R u le 40( e)
. N o j ud ge f avo re d a hear i ng en banc.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e V ACATE He a d’ s s e nt e nc e a nd R EM AND f orfurther pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

1- 15- 09