Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 773.0

529US3

Unit: $U56

[09-28-01 09:22:18] PAGES PGT: OPIN

698

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

The District Court revoked Johnson’s supervised release,
imposed a prison term of 18 months, and ordered Johnson
placed on supervised release for 12 months following im-
prisonment. App. 40–41. For this last order, the District
Court did not identify the source of its authority, though
under Circuit law it might have relied on § 3583(h), a subsec-
tion added to the statute in 1994, see Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, § 110505(2)(B), 108 Stat.
2017. Subsection (h) explicitly gave district courts the
power to impose another term of supervised release follow-
ing imprisonment, a power not readily apparent from the
text of § 3583(e)(3) (set out infra, at 704).

Johnson appealed his sentence, arguing that § 3583(e)(3)
gave district courts no such power and that applying
§ 3583(h) to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the
Constitution, Art. I, § 9. The Sixth Circuit, joining the ma-
jority of the Federal Courts of Appeals, had earlier taken
Johnson’s position as far as the interpretation of § 3583(e)(3)
was concerned, holding that it did not authorize a district
court to impose a new term of supervised release following
revocation and reimprisonment. See United States v.
Truss, 4 F. 3d 437 (CA6 1993).2
It nonetheless afﬁrmed the
District Court, judgt. order reported at 181 F. 3d 105 (1999),
reasoning that the application of § 3583(h) was not retroac-
tive at all, since revocation of supervised release was punish-
ment for Johnson’s violation of the conditions of supervised

2 Of the 11 Circuits to consider the issue, 9 had reached this conclusion.
See, e. g., United States v. Koehler, 973 F. 2d 132 (CA2 1992); United States
v. Malesic, 18 F. 3d 205 (CA3 1994); United States v. Cooper, 962 F. 2d 339
(CA4 1992); United States v. Holmes, 954 F. 2d 270 (CA5 1992); United
States v. Truss, 4 F. 3d 437 (CA6 1993); United States v. McGee, 981 F. 2d
271 (CA7 1992); United States v. Behnezhad, 907 F. 2d 896 (CA9 1990);
United States v. Rockwell, 984 F. 2d 1112 (CA10 1993); United States v.
Tatum, 998 F. 2d 893 (CA11 1993). Two, the First and the Eighth, found
that § 3583(e)(3) did grant district courts such power. See United States
v. O’Neil, 11 F. 3d 292 (CA1 1993); United States v. Schrader, 973 F. 2d
623 (CA8 1992).