* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 9/23/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

EDMUND DEE WASH,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-4156

(D.C. No. 92-CR-158)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1 The government urges a remand of this case to allow the district court to

specify whether that court was acting pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c) or

28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, because the notice of appeal clearly designates that

defendant is appealing his sentence and because defendant filed his notice of

appeal in a timely manner from the entry of judgment on that sentence, we will

treat this as a direct appeal. See generally United States v. Robinson, 62 F.3d

1282, 1283 (10th Cir. 1995)(addressing on direct appeal sentence imposed

following revocation of supervised release).

-2-

The issue presented by this direct appeal1 is whether the district court

violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution by sentencing

defendant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) and following the revocation of his

original term of supervised release, to both a term of imprisonment and an

additional term of supervised release. Reviewing the district court’s decision de

novo, see United States v. Cabrera-Sosa, 81 F.3d 998, 1001 (10th Cir. 1996),

petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 16, 1996)(No. 96-5205), we conclude that the

district court’s application of § 3583(h) did not violate the constitutional

prohibition against ex post facto laws and we, therefore, affirm. 

In July 1992, defendant pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter as a result

of the March 1992 death of Joellyn Bad Hawk. Defendant received a sentence of

thirty-six months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. In July 1995,

the district court revoked defendant’s term of supervised release, after finding

that defendant had violated the conditions of that release. The court, pursuant to

§ 3583(h), which did not become effective until September 1994, sentenced
-3-

defendant to both a term of imprisonment and an additional term of supervised

release. 

The ex post facto clause prohibits legislation that inflicts a greater

punishment than that available at the time the crime was committed. Collins v.

Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 41-42 (1990)(citing Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390

(1798)). “[C]entral to the ex post facto prohibition is a concern for ‘the lack of

fair notice and governmental restraint when the legislature increases punishment

beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated.’” Miller v.

Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 430 (1987)(quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 30

(1981)). “To fall within the ex post facto prohibition . . . the law [first] ‘must be

retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment’; and

second, ‘it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.’” Id. (quoting Weaver,

450 U.S. at 29). “A law is retrospective if it ‘changes the legal consequences of

acts completed before its effective date.’” Id. (quoting Weaver, 450 U.S. at 31). 

Section 3583(h), enacted subsequent to the conduct underlying defendant’s

involuntary manslaughter conviction, expressly authorizes, in specific instances

following the revocation of a term of supervised release, the imposition of both a

term of imprisonment and an additional term of supervised release. The law in

this circuit at the time defendant committed his offense, however, also permitted

the imposition of terms of both imprisonment and supervised release upon
-4-

revocation of a term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v.

Boling, 947 F.2d 1461, 1463 (10th Cir. 1991)(interpreting § 3583(e) to permit

imposition of both terms of imprisonment and supervised release), overruled by

United States v. Rockwell, 984 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 966

(1993). Because § 3583(h), therefore, did not increase the punishment available

for the revocation of supervised release at the time defendant committed his

offense, the application of that subsection to defendant does not violate the ex

post facto clause. 

This court’s decision in Rockwell, 984 F.2d 1112, does not change this

result. In Rockwell, decided after defendant’s offense, conviction, and sentence,

this court overruled Boling and joined the majority of circuits interpreting

§ 3583(e) to allow a district court, upon revocation of supervised release, either to

impose a term of imprisonment or to extend the defendant’s supervised release,

but not both. Id. at 1117. Nonetheless, the existence of Boling gave defendant

fair notice at the time of his offense that he would be subject to both a term of

imprisonment and an additional term of supervised release should his original

term of supervised release be revoked. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282,

297-98 (1977)(existence of Florida’s death penalty scheme, in effect at time

defendant committed murders, was operative fact warning defendant that he

would be subject to death penalty should he be convicted of capital murder,
-5-

regardless of subsequent decision overturning death penalty scheme as

unconstitutional and application of newly enactment death penalty statute to

defendant); see also Miller, 482 U.S. at 431 (in Dobbert, ex post facto concerns

were satisfied because statute on books at time defendant committed crimes

warned him of specific punishment prescribed for first degree murder). 

The parties do agree, however, that the district court erred in imposing,

upon revocation of the original term of supervised release, a ten-month term of

imprisonment followed by a one-year term of additional supervised release. See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(h)(“The length of such a term of supervised release [imposed

upon revocation of a previous supervised release term] shall not exceed the term

of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the

original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was

imposed upon revocation of supervised release.”). Defendant asserts, and the

government concedes, that the district court in this case had authority only to

sentence defendant to a two-month term of supervised release. We, therefore,

remand this case to the district court for resentencing. 
-6-

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is,

therefore, AFFIRMED in part, and this cause is REMANDED to the district court

for vacatur of defendant’s sentence and for further proceedings consistent with

this order and judgment.

Entered for the Court

James E. Barrett

Senior Circuit Judge