Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/529/53/index.php
Timestamp: 2017-11-23 05:31:27
Document Index: 90950807

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3624', '§ 3624', '§ 3624', '§ 3624', '§ 3583', '§ 3624']

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON 529 U.S. 53 - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions - On-Line> Volume 529 > UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON 529 U.S. 53
UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON 529 U.S. 53
Subscribe to Cases that cite 529 U.S. 53
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, commonsense 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 supervised 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 interpretation, not some fictitious or constructive earlier time. Indeed, the section admonishes that "supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned." The statute does provide for concurrent 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 conditions 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 include assisting individuals in their transition to community life. Super-cralaw
* Edward M. Chikofsky, Barbara E. Bergman, and Henry J. Bemporad filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.cralaw