Opinion ID: 5288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing requirements

Text: The district court ordered Courtney imprisoned for twenty-four months followed by three years of supervised release. Courtney complains that this is improper because under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) the district court is prohibited from ordering both a period of imprisonment and a period of supervised release on revocation of an 11 original term of supervised release. In its brief, the government states that it appears that the imposition of the additional term of supervised release was error, and that remand for resentencing would be appropriate. We accept the government's concession. As held in United States v. Holmes, 954 F.2d 270 (5th Cir. 1992), the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) does not allow a district court to revoke a term of supervised release and then impose both a term of imprisonment and an extended term of supervised release following that prison term. Id. at 272. Once a term of supervised release is revoked, it no longer exists and cannot be used as the basis for a new term of supervised release following imprisonment. Id. Therefore, the Holmes panel reversed that part of the judgment, vacated the sentence, and remanded to allow the district court to sentence with all legal choices before it. Id. at 273.