Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 128

529US1

Unit: $U33

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

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

53

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the sixth circuit

No. 98–1696. Argued December 8, 1999—Decided March 1, 2000

Respondent had been serving time in federal prison for multiple drug
and ﬁrearms felonies when two of his convictions were declared invalid.
As a result, he had served 2.5 years’ too much prison time and was at
once set free, but a 3-year term of supervised release was yet to be
served on the remaining convictions. He ﬁled a motion to reduce his
supervised release term by the amount of extra prison time he served.
The District Court denied relief, explaining that the supervised release
commenced upon respondent’s actual release from incarceration, not be-
fore. The Sixth Circuit reversed, accepting respondent’s argument that
his supervised release term commenced not on the day he left prison,
but when his lawful term of imprisonment expired.

Held: This Court is bound by the controlling statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3624(e),
which, by its necessary operation, does not reduce the length of a
supervised release term by reason of excess time served in prison.
Under § 3624(e), a supervised release term does not commence until an
individual “is released from imprisonment.” The ordinary, common-
sense meaning of “release” is to be freed from conﬁnement. To say
respondent was released while still imprisoned diminishes the concept
the word intends to convey. Section 3624(e) also provides that a super-
vised release term comes “after imprisonment,” once the prisoner is
“released by the Bureau of Prisons to the supervision of a probation
ofﬁcer.” Thus, supervised release does not run while an individual
remains in the Bureau of Prisons’ custody. The phrase “on the day the
person is released” in § 3624(e) suggests a strict temporal interpreta-
tion, not some ﬁctitious or constructive earlier time.
Indeed, the sec-
tion admonishes that “supervised release does not run during any period
in which the person is imprisoned.” The statute does provide for con-
current running of supervised release in speciﬁc, identiﬁed cases, but
the Court infers that Congress limited § 3624(e) to the exceptions set
forth. Finally, § 3583(e)(3) does not have a substantial bearing on the
interpretive issue, for this directive addresses instances where con-
ditions of supervised release have been violated, and the court orders
a revocation. While the text of § 3624(e) resolves the case, the Court’s
conclusion accords with the objectives of supervised release, which in-
clude assisting individuals in their transition to community life. Super-