D i s t r i ct J u d g e , S ou t h e r n D i s t r i ct of M i s s i s s i p p i , s i t t i n g b y d e s i g n a t i on . * 

### INTHE UN ITED S TATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE F IFT H CI RCUI T

No s . 0 8 - 5 0 6 1 9 & 08- 50620

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f- A pp el l ee
v. A L E J A N D R O M O L IN A -G A Z C A , al so kn ow n as A l ej an dro M art i n ez D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, E L R O D , C ir cui tJu dg e, an d G U IR O L A , D i st ri ct Ju dg e. * L O U IS G U IR O L A , JR . , D i st ri ctJu dg e: A l ej an dro M ol i n a- G azca ap pea l s t h e revocat i on of hi s s u pervi sed rel ease
c o n te n d in gth a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n . In th is ca s e , th e co u r t is United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 11, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2

cal l ed u pon t o i n t erpret t h e bread t h of t h e sup ervi sed rel ease t ol l i n g provi si on in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 4 (e ). F in d in gth a t M o lin a -G a z c a ’ s p r e tr ia l d e te n tio n w a s “in
conn ectio n w i t h ” a convi ct i on an d thu s t ol l ed the peri od of sup ervi sed rel ease,
w e a ffir m . 

### FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In1 9 9 9 , M o lin a -G a zcap le a d e dgu iltytop o sse ssio n w i thth ein te n t to di s tribut e and i mport ati on of mari j uana. The di s tric tc ourts ent enc ed Molina- Gaz c atoc o ncurre ntt er msof s ixty- f ourmonthsi mpri s onmentand thr ee y e a rs o f su p e rvise dre le a se . Afte r re le a sefro mim p riso n m e n t, M o lin a -G a zca ’s t er m of s u p e rvis ed r el eas e c ommenc ed on November3, 2003. The t er m of
s upervi s ed r el eas e wass chedul ed t o expir e on November2, 2006. According to therecord, N ew Me xico au thorities arr ested M olina-Ga zc a an d char ge d hi m with s ev er als eri ou sf elony o f f en s eson Ju ly 8, 20 05. He
r emained in c us t ody pending tri al . On November 15, 2006, Molina- Gaz c a was c onvic t ed. He was s ent enc ed t o 39 year si mpri s onmenton Sept ember24, 2007. Ats ent enc ing Molina- Gaz c a was given c r editf orthe ti me he s erved in pr etri al
c us t ody. Th e gove rn m e ntm ove dtorevo keMo lina - Ga z c a’ ss up ervi s edr el ea s e. Th e governmentcit ed the New Mexic o c onvic ti on and as s ert ed th a t “ter msof
s upervi s i on ar e t oll ed (i . e. , do notrun) whil e the of f enderi si mpri s oned f

or303



### o r m o reco n se cu tiv ed ay s inco n n e ctio nw ithaco nvictio n .” A r e vo c at i o n war r ant
w as i ssued on M ay 3, 200 7, al m ostsi x m on t h s af t er M ol i n a- G azca’ s peri od of
su p e rv ise d rel ease w as sett o expi re and af t er hi s N ovem ber 15, 200 6, N ew M e xi c o c o nvi c t i o n. 

### Atther evoc ati onhe aring , Mo lina - Ga z c a ar gu edthatthe di s tric t c ourt l ac ked j uri s dic ti on overthe matt erbec aus e pur s uantt o § 3624(e) hi sti mein p r etri alc us t ody di d notto ll his te rmo f su p e rvise dre le a se . I n d e t e r m in in gth a tit h a d ju r is d ic t io n to r e v o k e M o li n a -G a z c a ’s
s upe r vi s e d r el eas e , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tr e c o gni z e d t hata l t ho ugh t he r e w as no bi ndi ng pr e c e de nti n t hi s c i r c ui t , tw o o t he rc i r c ui tc o ur t s ha d c o ns i de r e d t he i s s ue a nd r e ac he d o ppo s i t e c o nc l us i o ns . The N i nt h Ci r c ui t , i n U ni t ed St at es v. M o r a le s -A lejo , 1 93 F. 3d 11 02 ( 9t h Ci r . 19 99 ) , he l d t hat a c o nvi c t i o n m us to c c ur
w i t hi n t he t e r m o f

s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e f o rt he pr e t r i alde t e nt i o n pe r i o d t o t o l lt he pe r i o d o f

s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e . I ns t e ad , t he di s t r i c t c o ur tr e l i e d o n U n i t ed S t ates
v. G o i ns , 5 1 6 F .3 d 4 1 6 ( 6 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), w h ic h h e ld t h a t w h e n a d e fe n d a n t is h e ld f o rt hi r t y da ys or l on ger i n pr e t r i alde t e nt i o n, a nd h e i s l at e rc o nvi c t e d f o rt he
o f fe n s e f o rw h i c h h e w a s h e l d , a n d h i s p r e t r i a ld e t e n t i o n i s c r e d i t e d a s t i me
s e r ve d t o w ar d hi s s e nt e nc e , t he n t he pr e t r i alde t e nt i o n i s “ i n c o nne c t i o n wi t h”
a co n v iction a n d tolls th e p e rio d of su p e rv ise d re lea se u n d e r § 3 6 2 4 (e). 

### The di s tric tc ourtulti mat ely c onc luded thatMolina- Gaz c a had viol at ed the t er msof

hi ss upervi s ed r el eas e and s ent enc ed hi m t o c onc urr entt er msof4



### f if t ee n m onthsi mp ri s on me nt . Th e f if t ee n- mo nth t er mswe r e o r de r ed to run co n se cu tiv e lyw ithth eN e wM e xicoju d g m e n t. STAN DA RD O F REVI EW M o lin a -G a zcatim e lya p p e a le dfro mb o thju d g m e n ts, invo kin gth eco u rt’s ju risdictio no v e r fin a l se n te n cin gd e cisio n s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 74 2(a). H i s appeal ch a l l en ge s th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s j u ri sd i cti on to rev ok e h i s su p erv i sed releas e. “W e revi ew the di st ri ctcourt ' s j u ri sdi ct i on t o revoke a defend an t ’ s s u pervi sed rel ease de nov o . ” U ni t e d St at e s v . G ar c i a- Aval i no , 444 F. 3 d 444, 445 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U n i t ed S t ates v. E n gl i sh , 4 0 0 F .3d 2 7 3 , 2 7 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 )); s e e al so U n ite d S ta te s v . J im e n e z -M a r tin e z , 1 7 9 F .3d 9 8 0 , 9 8 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). DI S CU S S I ON N o F i f t h C i rcuit case deci des t h e preci se questi on of w h et h er

“ i m pri sonm en t in c on n ect i on w i t h a convi ct i on ” app l i es t o pret ri aldetenti on
w h e n t h e resu l ti n g co n victi on occu rs a ft er th e p eriod of su p erv i sed releas e is
sc hedul ed t o e xpi r e. D es pi t e b ot h part i es ’ar gum ent s t o t he c ont r ar y, U n i t ed S t ates v. Jackson , 426 F . 3d 3 0 1 (5t h C i r. 200 5) does not deci de the qu est i on be c aus e o f

a n i m po r t antfac t ualdi s t i nc t i o n. I n Jack s o n, th e d e fe n d a n t ’s t o l l - t r i gg eri n g conv i c t i o n o c c ur r e d bef ore t h e end of

t h e t erm of

sup ervi sed
r e l e as e . I n fac t , t he c o nvi c t i o n i n Jack son occ u rred bef ore t h e t erm of

sup ervi sed
r e le a s e h a d b e g u n . I d. at 30 2– 05 . The o nl y o c c as i o n t o a ddr e s s t he na t ur e o f t he5

i m pr i s o nm e nt - c o nvi c t i o n “ c o nne c t i o n” i n Ja c ks o n w as unr e l at e d t o t he
c o n v ic tio n ’ s tim in g . Id . at304- 05. “T h e a p p r o p r ia te s ta r tin g p o in t w h e n in te r p r e tin ga n ys ta tu te is its p la in
m ea n i n g.” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . E l r a wy , 44 8 F . 3 d 30 9 , 31 5 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 6 ). “ In
as cert ai ni ng t he pl ai n m e ani ng o f t he s t at ut e , t he c o ur tm us tl o o k t o t he pa r t i c ul ars t at ut o r y l ang uag e a ti s s ue , a s w e l la s t he l ang uag e a nd d e s i gn o f t he statu te as a w h ole. ” KM a r t C o r p . v . C a r tie r , In c ., 4 8 6 U . S . 2 8 1 , 29 1 , 10 8 S . C t. 181 1, 100 L . E d. 2d 313 ( 198 8)
. Th e “ su p e rv ision af t er r el ease” provi si on of § 3 6 2 4 (e) pr ov i d es in p a rt t h a t: T h e te r m o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e c o m m e n c e s o n th e d a y th e p e r s o n is r e l e as e d f

rom im pr i s o nm e nta nd r uns c o nc ur r e nt l y w i t h a ny F ederal , State, or l ocalt erm of p robati on or sup ervi sed rel ease or pa rol e f or an ot h er of

fen se t o w h i ch the person i s s u bj ector becom es s u b je c t d u r in gth e te r m o f s u p e r v is e d re le a s e . A t erm of sup ervi sed r elea se d oe s n ot ru n du ri n g a n y p eriod i n w h i ch the pe rson is i m pri soned i n conn ect i on w i t h a convi ct i on f or a Fed eral , State, or l oc alc ri m e u nl es s t he i m pri so nm enti s f ora pe r i od o f

l es s t han 30 consecuti ve da ys.
1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 4 (e) (em p h a sis a d d e d ). M o l i na- G az c a ar gue s t hata c o nvi c t i o n w ith in t h e peri od of sup ervi sed
r e le a s e is n e c e s s a r yto tr ig g e rth e to llin gp r o v is io n u n d e r§ 3 6 2 4 (e ). W e di s ag r e e . I n Jack son , t he c our thel d t hat t he s t a tu tory t extof § 3624( e) w as
unam bi gu ou s and pr o vi de d t hatt he pe r i o d o f s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e do e s no tr un duri ng i m pri so nm ent , w i t hout exc ept i on. 426 F. 3d at 304. C ongr es s c oul d have6

el ect ed to restrict t h e app l i cat i on of § 362 4( e) i n t h e m an n er M ol i n a- G azca sug gest s. For exam pl e, C on gress co u l d h ave l i m i t ed tol l i n g t o peri ods of i m pri sonm en ti n conn ection w i t h a convi ct i on t h at “ occurs du ri n g sup ervi sed relea se.” H ow ev er, § 3 6 2 4 (e) m a k e s n o d i sti n cti on be tw ee n pr e-tri a lor p ostconvi c t i o n pe r i o ds o f i m pr i s o nm e nt , b uti ns t e ad r e qui r e s t hat“ anype r i o d” of i m pr i s o nm e ntb e “ i n c o nne c t i o n wi t h a c o nvi c t i on ” for t o l l i ng t o a ppl y. The phras e “ i m pri so ned i n co nnect i on w i t h a c onvi c t i on” pl ai nl y l ac ks any t em por al lim ita tio n . D u ri n g oralargu m en t , M ol i n a- G azca sug g e ste d that t ol l i n g t h e peri od of p r e tr ia l d e te n tio n le a v e s a d e fe n d a n t in a s ta te o f “ju r is d ic tio n a l lim b o ” w h ile t h e di st ri ctcou rtw ai t s t o see i f a convi ct i on w i l lact u al l y occur. W e are aw are t h at on rare occasi on s t h e t ol l i n g of sup ervi sed rel ease du ri n g pretr i aldetenti on p e r i o d s t h a ta r e l a t e rc o n n e c t e d t o a c o n v i c t i o n ma yc r e a t e p o t e n t i a lp r o b l e ms f or j u dg es seeki n g t o est abli sh w h et h er t h ey h ave j u ri sdi ct i on t o revoke a d e fe n d a n t’s s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . H o w e v e r , it is th e fu n c tio n o f th e co u r t t o a p p ly § 362 4( e) as w ri t t en . To the extent t h at C on gress’ s om i ssi on of a causal or t em poralterm resu l t s i n u n cert ai n t y as to a d efen da n t ’ s s t atus, our rol e i s not t o i m pl y t h ose l i m i t s w h en C on gress coul d h ave d on e so i n t h e f i rsti n st an ce. M ol i n a- G az c a al s o a r gue s t hatde t e nt i o n a nd i m pr i s o nm e nta r e not
s y n o n y m o u s , a n d d u r in gh is s u p e r v is e d re le a s e p e r i o d , h e s u ffe r e d o n ly7

de t e nt i o n, a nd n o ti m pr i s o nm e nt . I n M o r a le s -A lejo , t h e N i n t h C i rcui tf ram ed t h e § 3624 qu est i on as w h e t h er “ pretr i aldetenti on operates t o t ol la t erm of
s u p e r v is e d re le a s e ” u n d e r§ 3 6 2 4 , i d. at 110 5 an d beg an w i t h t extual an al ysi s: W e c o nc l ude t hatt he i nt e nto f Cong r e s s i s a ppa r e ntf r o m t he l an gu age of

t h e st atute. Sect ion 362 4( e) provi des f or t ol l i n g w h en th e p e r s o n is “im p r is o n e d in co n n e c tio n w ith a c o n v ic tio n .” Ap la in r eadi ng of

t hi s l a nguage s ugges t s t hat t her e m ustbe an i m pri so nm entr es u l ti ng f r om orot her w i se t r i gge r ed bya c r i m i nal convic t i on . Pretr i aldetenti on does not f i tt h i s def

i n i t i on , becau se a pe r s o n i n pr e t r i alde t e nt i o n ha s not y e tb e e n c o nvi c t e d a nd m i ght ne ve rb e c o nvi c t e d. I d. a t 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 5 . In s u p p o r t o f th is co n s t r u c t i o n , M o r a le s -A lejo ar gued t hat “C o n g r e s s u s e s th e te r m s ‘ im p r is o n m e n t’ a n d ‘ d e te n t io n ’v e r yd iffe r e n tly in federalcr i m i n alst atutes, ” an d that w h i l e “ ‘ im pri sonm en t ’consi st en t l y i s used t o ref er t o a pen al t y or s en t en ce . . . ‘ detenti on ’i s u sed t o d escr ibe a m echa n i sm to in s u r e a d e fe n d a n t’s a p p e a r a n c e a n d th e s a fe ty o f th e co m m u n ity .” T h e term “i m p ri son m en t” con sist en tl y is us ed to refer to a p en a l ty o r s e n t e n c e . S e e , e .g ., 18 U . S . C . § 3559 ( u si n g t h e t erm im p r is o n m e n t a s m e a n in gs e n te n c e a fte rco n v ic tio n ); 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 81 ( s am e ) ; 1 8 U . S. C. § 410 1(b) ( r e fe r r i ng t o i m pr i s o nm e nti n t he c o nt e xto f

t r ans fe r s t o f

o r e i gn c o unt r i e s a nd d e f i ni ng i m pr i s o nm e nt a s “a p e n a lty im p o s e d b y a c o u r t u n d e rw h ic h th e in d iv id u a l is c o n fin e d to a n in s tit u tio n ”). In co n tr a s t, t h e t e r m “d e te n tio n ” is u se d to descr ibe a m echa n i sm t o i n sure a defenda n t ' s app earan ce a n d t h e s a fe ty o f th e co m m u n ity . S e e , e .g ., 18 U . S . C . § 3142 ( c) (p r o v id in gth a t a d e fe n d a n t m a yb e h e ld in p r e tr ia l d e te n tio n in o r de rt o i ns ur e a ppe ar anc e f o rl e ga l pr o c e e di ngs o rt he s af e t y o f t he co m m u n ity). I d. at1105For example: “The judicia l officer shallorder that a per son who has been 1 foundguil ty of an off

ense in a c ase des cribed in subparagraph (A) , (B) , or ( C) of subsection (f

)(1) of section 31 42 a nd s entencedto a term of imprisonment , and who has filed an appeal or a p etiti on fora writ of c ertiorari, be detained .” § 3143(b) (2 ) (emphasis added). 8 I n G o i ns , t h e S ix t h C ir c u it w a s “ h e s it a n tto c r e d it th e N in t h C ir c u it ’s di s t i nc t i o n b e t w e e n de t e nt i o n a nd i m pr i s o nm e nt ” b e c aus e t he r e s ul t i ng constr u ct i on w ou l d rend er part s of t h e st atute m ean i n gl ess: If the N i n th C i rcu i t w ere corre ct t hatC ongre ss u ses “i m p ri son m en t” o n ly w h e n it w ish e s to refe r to a co n fin e m e n t th a t is th e re su lt o f a pe nal t y o rs e nt e nc e , t he n t he phr as e “ i n c o nne c t i o n wi t h a c o nvi c t i o n ” becom es e nt i r e l y s upe r f l uo us ; “ i m pr i s o nm e nt , ” a c c o r di ng t o t he N i nt h Ci r c ui t ’ s de f i ni t i o n, w o ul d a l r eady m e an t hatt he c o nf i ne m e nti s t he r e s ul to f a c o nvi c t i o n. I d. at 421 . Th e G o i ns c o ur t c o nc l ude d t hat t he pl ai n m e ani n g of “ i m pr i s o n” in c lu d e d a n yin s ta n c e o f s ta te d e te n tio n . I d. a t 4 2 2 . G o i ns a l so f ou n d su pp ort f o ri t s c o ns t r uc t i o n i n “ 18 U . S. C. § 3 58 5(b) , w hi c h pr o vi de s f o r‘ c r e di tt o w ar d t he
s e r v ic e o f

a te r m o f im p r is o n m e n t fo ra n ytim e [th e d e fe n d a n t] h a s s p e n t in
o f f i c i alde t e nt i o n pr i o rt o t he da t e t he s e nt e nc e c o m m e nc e s . . . a s a r e s ul to f t he offen se for w h i ch the sen ten ce w a s i m p ose d . ’ ” I d. (a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l). O t h er f ederalcr i m i n alcode provi si on s m ak e a n y d i st i n ct i on betw een i m pri sonm en tan d d et en t i on l ess cl ear. F or exam pl e, 18 U . S . C . § 314 3 of t en uses
va r i at i o ns o f

“ i m pr i s o n” a nd “ de t ai n” i n c l os e pr o xi m i t y, s ugg e s t i ng t hatt he te r m s ca r r yd iffe r e n t m e a n in g s . S ee § 314 3 (a), (b) ( 1) , (b) ( 2) , ( c ) ( 1)
. Bu t , 18 19

U . S. C . § 3041, under t he ge ner al a rres t pr ovi si ons , w oul d s ee m t o r ej ec tan i m pri sonm en t - detenti on di st i n ctio n b yp ro v id in gth a t offe n d e rs m ay be “arres t ed and i m pri soned o r r e l e as e d as pr o vi de d i n c hap t e r 20 7 o f t hi s t i t l e [ “ Rel e as e a nd D e te n tio n o f a D e fe n d a n t P e n d in gJ u d ic ia l P r o c e e d in g s ”], a s th e ca s e m a yb e , f or t r i alb e f

o r e s uc h c o ur to f

t he U ni t e d St at e s a s b y l aw has cogn i zan ce of t he
o ffe n s e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 0 4 1 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W e a gr e e w i t h t he S i xth C i rc ui t ’ s r e as o ni ng i n G o in s . 

### If the term

“im p riso n ment”only r ef er st o c onf

inementthati sthe r es ultof a penalty or se n te n ce , th e nth ep h ra se w i th in§ 3 6 2 4 (e), “inco n n e ctio nw ithaco nvictio n ,” is su p e rflu o u s. “ [ W ] he n i nt e r pr e t i ng a s t at ut e , i ti s ne c e s s ar y t o g i ve m e ani ng to alli ts w ord s a n d to ren d er n on e su p erfl u ou s. ” U n i t ed S t ates v. R ayo-V al dez 3 0 2 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 1 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); se e a l so U ni t ed St at es v. V ar gas - D uran , 356 F . 3d 598 , 603 ( 5th C i r. 200 4) (h ol di n g t h at r u l es of st atutor y i n t erpret ati on “re q u ire s u s, w h e n p o s s ib le, to g ive ea ch w o rd in a sta tu te op e ra tiv e effe ct”). Pr e t r i aldetenti on fal l s w i t h i n “ an y peri od i n w h i ch the person i s i m pri sone d” and t ol l s t h e peri od of sup ervi sed rel ease, provi ded a convic t i on u l t i m atel y o cc u rs. T h i s pl ai n m ean i n g i n t erpret ati on of § 3624 ( e) gi ves ef

fectt o al lof

i t s t erm s. 

### M o lin a -G a zcaw a s a rre ste da n dco nvicte d . At s e n te n cin g , h is p e rio din pr etri alde t enti onwa sc r edit edasti mes erve d onhi sNe w M exic o c onvic ti on . Thus , hi spr etri alpe ri odof i mp ri s on me ntwa sin c on ne c ti onwith thec onvictio n.10



### Th edistrict co u rt co rre ctly c o n clu d e dth a t p u rsu a n t to§ 3 6 2 4 (e) M o lin a -G a zca ’s
s upervi s ed r el eas e peri od wast oll ed during the pr etri al det enti on in c onnec ti on w ithth e N e w M e x i coco nvictio na n dth a t it h a dju risdictio ntore vo k eh is
s upervi s ed r el eas e. CO NCL US I ON F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g me n t s a r e A F F I RMED.