IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50699

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL L. LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

_______________________________

May 9, 2000

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Michael L. Lewis (“Lewis”) appeals from the

district court’s revocation of his supervised release. 

Specifically, Lewis contends that, because the Parole Commission

paroled him in 1998, his original sentence imposing supervised

release must be invalid because supervised release and parole are

mutually exclusive. Therefore, Lewis insists, the district court

lacked jurisdiction over him to revoke his supervised release.

Lewis’s argument contains two foundational assumptions, both

flawed. The first is the notion that supervised release and

parole are mutually exclusive; the second is the assertion that
1

See Controlled Substances Act, Pub. L. No. 91-513, Tit. II, 84

Stat. 1242 (1970); Controlled Substances Penalties Amendment Act, Pub. L. No.

98-473, Tit. II, ch. V, 98 Stat. 2068 (1984); Sentencing Reform Act, Pub. L.

98-473, Tit. II, ch. II, 98 Stat. 1987 (1984); Anti-Drug Abuse Act, Pub. L.

99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (1986).

2

subsequent acts of the Parole Commission could render invalid a

prior, correct judgment. We address each in turn.

Between 1970 and 1986, Congress enacted four different

statutes1 that set forth the sentences for substance abuse

offenses. Lewis is correct when he argues that not one of these

statutes, standing alone, authorizes the imposition of both

parole and supervised release. But what Lewis ignores is that,

in the complex interplay between the statutes’ effective and

repeal dates, some persons convicted of drug offenses, like

Lewis, will find themselves on both parole and supervised release

simultaneously. This occurs because § 1002 the Anti-Drug Abuse

Act of 1986 (“ADAA”) mandates supervised release for all

individuals convicted of drug offenses after October 26, 1986. 

See 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A) (containing the codification of §

1002); see also Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 405

(1991) (holding that § 1002 took effect on the date of its

enactment, October 27, 1986). However, the “good conduct

statutes,” 18 U.S.C. §§ 4161-4164 (repealed 1987), according to

which the United States Parole Commission calculated preguideline offenders’ sentences, were not repealed until November

1, 1987. See Sentencing Reform Act, Pub. L. 98-473, Tit. II, §
2

We emphasize that we are in no way implying that parole is

automatic or mandatory for those individuals convicted of drug offenses

occurring after October 26, 1986 and before November 1, 1987. The Parole

Commission’s grant of parole depends entirely on whether the individual

incarcerated earned early parole through his good conduct. Our holding does

not impact in the slightest the Parole Commission’s decision-making process as

to whether to grant parole; rather, we simply hold that the Parole

Commission’s determination to grant parole in this instance can be construed

as being consistent with the law in effect at the time.

3

235(a)(1) (1984) (providing for the repeal of the good conduct

statutes, effective November 1, 1987). The good conduct statutes

provide for mandatory early release based upon good conduct

credits, and further posit that anyone so released shall be

“deemed as if on parole.” 18 U.S.C. § 4164. Therefore, for

those individuals convicted of drug offenses that occurred during

the year and four days between October 26, 1986 and November 1,

1987, the Parole Commission will calculate their sentences

pursuant to the good conduct statutes—thereby allowing them to be

paroled—but the district court will also sentence them to

supervised release in accordance with the ADAA.2

We are cognizant of the fact that § 1002 of the ADAA also

contained the language: “No person sentenced under this

subparagraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of

imprisonment imposed therein.” We are thus confronted with a

direct conflict between §§ 4161-4164 and § 1002 for the time

period after October 26, 1996 and before November 1, 1997. 

However, where two statutes directly conflict, the more specific

of the statutes controls. See In re Armstrong, — F.3d — (5th

Cir. 2000), available at 2000 WL 263426 (5th Cir. (Tex.)), at * 4
3

For instance, § 4161 states:

Each prisoner convicted of an offense against the United States

and confined in a penal or correctional institution for a definite

term other than for life, whose record of conduct shows that he

has faithfully observed all the rules and has not been subjected

to punishment, shall be entitled to a deduction from the term of

his sentence beginning with the day on which the sentence

commences to run, as follows:

Five days for each month, if the sentence is not less that six

months and not more than one year.

Six days for each month, if the sentence is more than one year and

less than three years.

Seven days for each month, if the sentence is not less than three

years and less than five years.

Eight days for each month, if the sentence is not less than five

years and less than ten years.

Ten days for each month, if the sentence is ten years or more.

When two or more consecutive sentences are to be served, the

aggregate of the several sentences shall be the basis upon which

the deduction shall be computed.

4

(“One basic principle of statutory construction is that where two

statutes appear to conflict, the statute addressing the relevant

matter in more specific terms governs.”). Here, we have general

(though absolute) language in § 1002 barring parole contrasted

with specific instructions for calculating sentence lengths,

including parole, in §§ 4161-4164.3 Moreover, § 235(a)(1) of the

Sentencing Reform Act specifically mandated the repeal of §§

4161-4164 on November 1, 1987, thereby eliminating the

possibility that Congress intended implicitly to repeal §§ 4161-

4164 with § 1002. See generally Jackson v. Stinnett, 102 F.3d

132, 135 (5th Cir. 1996) (“It is hornbook law that ‘repeals by

implication are not favored.’” (quoting Crawford Fitting Co. v.

J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987))). Therefore,

despite the conflict, we hold that, for persons convicted of drug
5

offenses occurring after October 26, 1986 and before November 1,

1987, the possibility exists—depending on the good conduct of the

individual incarcerated and the calculations of the Parole

Commission—that such individual might experience both parole and

supervised release concurrently. Because parole and supervised

release may coexist, we decline Lewis’s invitation to infer error

in the district court’s judgment from the fact of the

simultaneous presence of parole and supervised release in his

post-incarceration life.

More fundamentally, however, Lewis’s novel attempt to

vitiate a valid district court judgment by means of his

subsequent parole derives from an old error of logic: post hoc,

ergo propter hoc. Lewis does not contest the validity of the

district court’s judgment when issued, nor could he successfully:

supervised release was available and a valid condition on Lewis’s

freedom from incarceration. How the subsequent actions of the

Parole Commission can transmogrify a valid district court

judgment into an unenforceable edict Lewis does not explain,

though this is the central premise of his argument. We need not

attempt to intuit his reasoning, however, because his conclusion

is plainly incorrect: no action of the Parole Commission’s could

invalidate the valid district court’s judgment. From this

perspective, even if parole and supervised release were mutually

exclusive, the district court’s judgment would still be valid

because the separation of powers doctrine insulates the validity
6

of the district court’s judgment from the subsequent acts of an

executive agency like the Parole Commission. See United States

v. Einspahr, 35 F.3d 505, 507 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Preserving this

delicate balance of authority requires that the power of

executive agencies with respect to parole not circumscribe the

ability of the courts to set specific sentences.”). Therefore,

the fact of Lewis’s parole in 1998 cannot cast doubt upon the

propriety of the imposition of supervised release by the district

court in 1993, and, once again, we reject Lewis’s contention that

the district court’s judgment is invalid.

Because the district court judgment imposing supervised

release is valid, the district court had jurisdiction over Lewis

to revoke his supervised release. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED