Opinion ID: 785471
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Permissibility of Reducing the Term of Supervised Release

Text: 36 As discussed in Part II.A. above, the district court's view that Barresi I foreclosed any adjustment of Barresi's term of supervised release was an unduly narrow interpretation and cannot be upheld as a basis for the court's refusal to consider a reduction of his supervised-release term as a remedy if the prison term imposed was excessive. The court stated in the alternative, however, that even if the Barresi I mandate did not foreclose adjustment of the supervised-release term, the court would nonetheless decline to downwardly depart to reduce the period of supervised release, and ... it would ... require a downward departure in order to effectuate that. (2003 Tr. at 9.) We conclude that this alternative basis for refusing to consider an adjustment in Barresi's supervised-release term reflected an error of law. 37 Preliminarily, we note that if the three-year supervised-release term imposed on Barresi had been mandated by statute, the district court would have been correct that Barresi's supervised-release term could not be reduced to compensate for extra time spent in prison. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 54-56, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) (where a defendant has served excess prison time but had been sentenced to the statutory minimum period of supervised release, the excess portion of his prison term cannot be credited against his supervised-release term); see also id. at 60, 120 S.Ct. 1114 (such a defendant is free to seek early termination of his supervised-release term pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (court may terminate an individual's supervised release obligations at any time after the expiration of one year ... if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and in the interest of justice)). However, no statutory section required that Barresi be ordered to serve any minimum term of supervised release for his § 1001 offense. The parameters of his supervised-release term were thus governed by the Guidelines. 38 The Guidelines provide that the sentencing court shall order a term of supervised release to follow imprisonment when a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year is imposed, or when required by statute. Guidelines § 5D1.1(a). The ranges of supervised-release periods specified by the Guidelines vary according to the classification of the defendant's offense. For a defendant convicted of a Class D felony, if there is no statutory provision requiring a longer term, the Guidelines provide that if a term of supervised release is ordered,... the length of the term shall be ... at least two years but not more than three years. Id. § 5D1.2(a)(2). 39 Barresi's violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) was a Class D felony, see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4). Accordingly, under Guidelines § 5D1.2(a)(2), the minimum supervised-release term that the court could order (without a departure) having imposed a prison term (pursuant to a departure) of more than one year, was two years. The supervised-release term actually ordered for Barresi was three years, the maximum, not the minimum. Thus, the district court could have reduced Barresi's supervised-release term from three years to as low as two, within the range specified by the Guidelines; no departure would have been needed. 40 As the district court's refusals on remand (a) to determine where within the Guidelines range of 15-21 months it would have sentenced Barresi without consideration of the impermissible factors, and (b) to consider reducing Barresi's supervised-release term, were influenced by its mistaken views that such a reduction would contravene Barresi I and would require a Guidelines departure, we remand once again for reassessment of the sentence by the district court. The court should make a finding, with an explanation, as to the precise number of months of imprisonment it would have ordered in the absence of consideration of the impermissible factors. If the court determines that it would have imposed a prison term of 21 months, it need proceed no further. If it determines that it would have imposed a prison term of less than 21 months, the court should then consider whether it wishes to exercise its discretion to reduce Barresi's supervised-release term below three years — but not below two years — in order to compensate for the fact that Barresi completed his 21-month prison term before his resentencing took place.