Opinion ID: 785471
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Commencement of Supervised Release

Text: 41 Finally, we note a matter that is only tangentially related to the issues raised on this appeal but that appears to reflect some confusion in the record below as to the timing of the commencement of supervised release. When the district court rejected Barresi's request at the 2003 hearing for a reduction in his supervised-release term, Barresi asked that his term of supervised release be deemed to have commenced on April 1, 2003, when he was released from prison. ( See 2003 Tr. at 10.) The district court, however, indicated that his supervised-release term would begin on May 29, 2003, stating that the defense [had] made a major point of not treating Mr. Barres[i] as under supervised release, that that was the position that Mr. Barres[i] himself took, and that his attorney took, and he did not submit himself to supervised release. Therefore, I had to impose pretrial conditions on him, and advise him that he remain[ed] under pretrial supervision. ( Id. ) 42 The view that Barresi's supervised-release term began at some time later than his release from prison was contrary to the controlling statutory section, which provides that [t]he term of supervised release commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). Congress's intent that there be no hiatus between the term of imprisonment and the term of supervised release is further reflected in the provision that [a] prisoner whose sentence includes a term of supervised release after imprisonment shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons to the supervision of a probation officer who shall, during the term imposed, supervise the person released. Id. (emphasis added); see generally United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. at 56-58, 120 S.Ct. 1114. 43 The notion that Barresi himself, or his attorneys, could somehow control the starting date for his supervised-release term by taking a position or by not treating him as under supervised release is contrary to law. The record is unclear as to precisely what occurred when Barresi was released from prison, and we express no view as to the appropriate consequences if there was any lack of compliance with the statute. We assume, however, that any proceedings on remand will properly reflect the statutory requirements with regard to the commencement of supervised release.