Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 134.0

529US1

Unit: $U33

[10-04-01 09:21:43] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 53 (2000)

59

Opinion of the Court

related, the terms are not interchangeable. The Court of
Appeals was mistaken in holding otherwise, and the text
of § 3624(e) cannot accommodate the rule the Court of Ap-
peals derived. Supervised release has no statutory func-
tion until conﬁnement ends. Cf. United States v. Grand-
erson, 511 U. S. 39, 50 (1994) (observing that “terms of
supervised release . . . follow up prison terms”). The rule
of lenity does not alter the analysis. Absent ambiguity, the
rule of lenity is not applicable to guide statutory interpreta-
tion. Cf. Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 410
(1991).

While the text of § 3624(e) resolves the case, we observe
that our conclusion accords with the statute’s purpose and
design. The objectives of supervised release would be un-
fulﬁlled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce
terms of supervised release. Congress intended super-
vised release to assist individuals in their transition to
community life. Supervised release fulﬁlls rehabilitative
ends, distinct from those served by incarceration. See
§ 3553(a)(2)(D); United States Sentencing Commission,
Guidelines Manual §§ 5D1.3(c), (d), (e) (Nov. 1998); see also
S. Rep. No. 98–225, p. 124 (1983) (declaring that “the primary
goal [of supervised release] is to ease the defendant’s transi-
tion into the community after the service of a long prison
term for a particularly serious offense, or to provide rehabili-
tation to a defendant who has spent a fairly short period
in prison for punishment or other purposes but still needs
supervision and training programs after release”). Sentenc-
ing courts, in determining the conditions of a defendant’s
supervised release, are required to consider, among other
factors, “the nature and circumstances of the offense and
the history and characteristics of the defendant,” “the
need .
. to afford adequate deterrence to criminal con-
duct; . . . to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant; and . . . to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical care, or other cor-

.