Document: 529 U.S. 694120 S.Ct. 1795146 L.Ed.2d 727 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOHNSONv.UNITED CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 99_5153. Argued February 22, 2000 Decided May 15, Sentencing Reform Act 1984 replaced most forms parole supervised release overseen sentencing court. If conditions are violated, that court may "revoke [the] release, and require person to serve prison all or [supervised release] term _ without credit previously served on postrelease supervision ." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In March 1994, District sentenced petitioner Johnson imprisonment followed release. After beginning 1995, violated two his revoked ordered him an 18-month additional 12 months cited authority ordering but, under Circuit law, might have relied 3583(h), subsection added statute which explicitly gave district courts power. appealed, arguing §3583(e)(3) did not give power order new following reimprisonment, applying §3583(h) Ex Post Facto Clause. Although Sixth had taken same position regard §3583(e)(3), affirmed sentence, reasoning §3583(h)'s application was retroactive because revocation punishment Johnson's violation conditions, occurred after 1994 amendments. Held: 1. Section 3583(h) does apply retroactively, so ex post facto issue arises case. To prevail claim, must show, inter alia, law operates retroactively. Contrary Circuit's reasoning, postrevocation penalties attributable original conviction, defendants' offenses violating their conditions. Thus, sentence would section However, absent clear statement congressional intent, applies only cases initial offense amendment's effective date, September 13, 1994. Government offers nothing indicating contrary intent. decision alter §3583(e)(3)'s rule reveal when how legislative intended take effect; omission express date simply indicates that, direction, takes effect its enactment Gozlon-Peretz States, 498 395, 404. Nor Congress expressly identify relevant conduct way point case turns question, whether permitted imposition recommitment. Pp. 4_8. 2. 3583(e)(3), reimpose Subsection (e)(3) speak directly question. And if were concentrate exclusively verb "revoke," detect any suggestion reincarceration another term, conventional understanding "revoke" annul recalling taking back. there textual reasons think option further intended. (e)(1) unequivocally "terminate[s]" possibility reimposition continuation later time. Had likewise meant (3) conclude later, natural write like terms. That chose rather than "terminate" left door open reading preclude pre-1994 version provided could revoke "term release." This continues some effect. prison, then balance should remain over. interpretation means used unconventional way. sense unheard of, can also mean call summon back implication annulment. There surprising about consequences reading. It serves policy providing incarceration improve odds successful transition from liberty, prisoner seem need more one who tried liberty failed. supported pre-Sentencing-Guidelines practice. repeatedly violations, seems never question follow imposed term. Since mere termination limited defendant experience once per fair suppose bar, parole's replacement, leave well. "Revoke" such finds other. 8_19. 181 F.3d 105, affirmed. Souter, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, C. Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., joined, Kennedy, joined part. filed concurring Thomas, judgment. Scalia, dissenting opinion. Opinion 1 NOTICE: subject formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Decisions, Supreme Washington, D. 20543, typographical other errors, corrections made goes press. 99_5153 CORNELL JOHNSON, PETITIONERv.UNITED 2 ON WRIT 3 [May 2000] 4 Justice Souter Court. 5 grows out Clause challenge authorizes impose reimprisonment those violate argues do prior cures problems. We agree we find consideration unnecessary. 6 * 1984, §212(a)(2), 98 Stat. 1999, eliminated favor form postconfinement monitoring court, Parole Commission. 400_401 (1991). authorized imprisonment, maximum length 7 varying according severity offense. 3583(a), (b). While offender required abide certain specified imposable court's discretion. 3583(d). Upon condition, 3583(e)(3) (1988 ed., Supp. V) ."1 Such here. 8 October 1993, Cornell 1029(b)(2), Class D felony. Eastern Tennessee 25 months' three years available §3583(b) released August 14, having received good-conduct credits, began serving 3-year Some seven into he arrested Virginia convicted four state forgery-related offenses. He thus found mandatory §3583(d), commit crime during judicial permission. 9 months, placed imprisonment. App. 40_41. For last order, source authority, though §3583(h), see Violent Crime Law Enforcement 1996, §110505(2)(B), 108 2017. (h) readily apparent text (set infra, 8_9). 10 appealed Constitution, Art. I, §9. Circuit, joining majority Federal Courts Appeals, earlier far concerned, holding authorize reimprisonment. Truss, 437 (CA6 1993).2 nonetheless judgt. reported 105 (1999), all, since With retroactivity, violation. 49 (citing Abbington, 144 1003, 1005 (CA6), cert. denied, 525 933 (1998)). Other Circuits held contrary, From perspective, Clause.3 granted certiorari resolve conflicts, 528 590 now affirm. II 11 heart Clause, Const., §9, bars "that changes punishment, inflicts greater annexed crime, committed Calder Bull, Dall. 386, 390 (1798) (emphasis deleted). sort show both challenges retroactively (that completed enactment) raises penalty whatever acted. California Dept. Corrections Morales, 514 499, 506_507, n. (1995). mentioned earlier, disposed all: "imposes Page, 131 1173, 1176 (1997). On theory, is, did, given events enactment. 13 intuitive appeal, disavows it, wisely view serious constitutional questions raised construing violations often lead violative criminal judge preponderance evidence standard, jury beyond reasonable doubt. V). acts own right, they basis separate prosecution, raise double jeopardy Treating sanctions offense, however (as done), avoids these difficulties. See, e.g., Wyatt, 102 241, 244_245 (CA7 1996) (rejecting ground sentence); Beals, 87 854, 859_860 (noting noncriminal justified reference crimes), overruled grounds, Withers, 128 1167 (1997); Meeks, 1117, 1123 (CA2 1994) absence procedural protections proceedings). Cf. Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 782 (1973) ("Probation stage prosecution"). matter, treatment entailed our summary affirmance Greenfield Scafati, 277 F. 644 (Mass. 1967) (three-judge court), summarily aff'd, 713 (1968), three-judge panel forbade grounds Massachusetts imposing originally therefore attribute conviction. B 14 relate (and remaining makes worse off). But test), neither party addresses. level basic presumptions law: legislation, especially sort, applied Lynce Mathis, 519 433, 439 Landgraf USI Film Products, 511 244, 265 (1994). Quite independent then, application. Absent statutes burdening private interests. id., 270. 15 intent established (no reimprisonment) not, itself, tell us Rivers Roadway Express, Inc., 298, 304_307 Neither indication purpose statute. remits general "absent direction [it] enactment." Gozlon-Peretz, U.S., 404.4 16 Nor, finally, anything identifying well Congress, believed naturally govern proceedings took place statute's enactment, occasion sanctions.5 effect, already rejected theory; sum, longstanding presumption directs amendment, 17 Given conclusion, turn off previ- ously apply, arise. turns, instead, per- mitted recommitment.6 III 3583(e), 19 "(1) terminate discharge expiration year pursuant provisions Rules Criminal Procedure relating modification probation, satisfied action warranted interest justice; 20 "(2) extend less imposed, modify, reduce, enlarge probation applicable setting terms post-release supervision; 21 "(3) supervision, condition statements issued Commission 22 revoking service incarceration. "to back." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1944 (1981). reasons, nonetheless, 23 First, starting preceding (e)(1). unequivocal provision ending wrote defendant's interests justice warrant "terminate released," least served. upon finding release" incarcerated long what did. Instead using finality just illustrated (1), revocation.7 fact, phrasing non-preclusive 24 As written amendments, provide does) equal provided, rather, So imprisonment" served, "the whole part, something survives revocation. sounds very metaphysical, metaphysics make thing clear: unlike "terminated" "revoked" even why over?8 Without more, admit (3), of. O'Neil, 292, 295_296 (CA1 1993). (our edition Act) reveals back," (here) subsequently possible. gives "recall" synonym comments "RECALL calling back, suspending, abrogating, either finally erroneous ill-advised tentatively deliberation Ibid.9 dictionary definition course, dispositive (although emphasis Scalia suggest otherwise, post., 4_5). What do, however, soften strangeness Congress's allowing retain vitality shows saying reconsideration consistent secondary recognized definition, survive 26 A final textually based result recognizing usage remarkable usage. Let legislated language dissent, writing reason regime lack subsequent accordance 3583(a). provides "[t]he felony misdemeanor, include requirement dissent's reading, "impos[ed] imprisonment." 36, 39. was, noted, §1029(b)(2). supra, 4_6. formalism link second offense; gravity determines controls sentencing, §3583(b). resentencing proceeding fall literally sensibly within §3583(a), plain meaning approach there. Wesley, 81 482, 483_484 (CA4 (finding §3583(a) grants probation). 27 enjoys virtue evident purpose. liberty. Johnson, ___, ___ (2000) (slip op., 6) ("Congress assist individuals community life. Supervised fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct incarceration."). Senate Report quite explicit this, stating goal ease particularly rehabilitation spent fairly short period purposes still needs training programs S. Rep. 98_225, p. 124 (1983). 28 Prisoners may, vary degree help needed reintegration. departed system giving freedom those, it. 125 ("In bill current law. Unlike officers supervising releasees actually every releasee receive it"). aimed, use courts' discretionary judgment allocate most. forbidding fundamentally scheme. tends confirm necessary, profit decompression problem among cases, asserting "every it," ibid., unlikely compel wash hands worst end reimprisonment.10 29 idea reincarcerated support, moreover, pre-Guidelines practice respect nondetentive monitoring, illuminated 292 Guidelines, "represent begins with, builds upon," USSG, ch. 1, pt. A, intro. comment. 3, legal develops iden- tifiable predecessor, look pre-cursor fathoming INS Cardoza&nbhyph; Fonseca, 480 421, 432_434 (1987) (examining precursor determine amended statute). 30 Two sorts existed introduction release: parole. Of options, closely analogous parole, officer commented similarity. F.3d, 1121 ("[S]upervised essentially similar parole"); Paskow, 873, 881 (CA9 1993) ("Supervised virtually identical systems"). 31 thinking striking former scheme dealing "revoke." 4214(d)(5) (1982 ed.) (repealed Pub. L. 98_473, §§218(a)(5), 235, 2027, 2031) (revocation parole); 841(c) 1984) special parole). yet term.11 CFR 2.52(b) (1999) (following reparole warranted); 299; Comm'n Williams, 54 820, 824 (CADC 1995) principle unless precluded" (citation internal quotation marks omitted)).12 "revocation" bar 32 seen already, follows sure, precise reenactment sentencing. limits possible duration imposed. (If presumably §3583(e)(2); allow offense.) §3583(e)(3). specific suggests eliminated.13 33 purely plausible amendment addition leaves reincarceration. Pre-Guidelines practice, linguistic continuity old one, obvious thrust (h), 34 Appeals 35 Affirmed. 36 37 holds stood adding permits trial violated. my correct result. "require [a] right unexpired allocated, discretion, confinement specifies. convincing analysis adopted First reaching suffices (1993). analysis, Scalia's, post, 8, (dissenting opinion), which, explaining term" " `to annul' "`cancel'" treat "as existed," explains away inconvenient "describ[ing] now-defunct release," 7. This, says. Indeed, support Congress' §3583(g)-which elsewhere concedes "was mistake." Post, 3_4, Faced choice between difficult readings optimal statutory text, adopt sense. 38 I go suggest, does, §3583(e)(2) Ante, 18. subparts §3583(e) phrased disjunctive; stand own. plus exceed 39 invoke ante, 13_14, issues resolves, description "imposing sentence." Petitioner's appropriate adjustment 40 observations join save parenthetical discussion §3583(e)(2), 18, dictum regarding 13_14. 41 42 Court's V), sufficient Kennedy discussions unnecessary rely, (ante, 14_15) 2) supporting observations, concur 43 dissenting. 44 Parts opinion, thus, believe ultimately agree, provision. supervision." Finding authorization act willpower 45 defined statute, construed "in ordinary meaning." FDIC Meyer, 510 471, 476 recognizes, back.' (quoting (1981)); American Heritage 1545 (3d ed. 1992) (defining "[t]o void recalling, withdrawing, reversing; cancel; rescind"). Under canceled; replace revoked, unavailable. 46 content proceeds calls "unconventional" 11, back" annulling, ibid.1 thereby concludes retains abandonment purpose, analogy monitoring. None proffered convincing. 47 claims fact (e)(3), here, uses while "terminate." Since, interpreted exactly meaning, (1) intend "less common" namely, "call ibid.; (2) Each two-step patently false. 48 first: usual, ordinary-English amply distinguishable "terminate," tortured Old English (or actually, transliteration Latin) explain words. "Terminate" connotes completion cancellation. 1852 bring halt" occur of; finish"); 2605 (2d 1942) put to; cease; conclusion _"). Using (in sense) inexplicable; reflects admirably language. (e)(1), ("brought end") "by justice." treated fulfilled, complete. contrast, merely brought end; annulled existed, receiving hard pick words clearly connoting first step analysis-its inference requires alternative (e)(3)-is wrong posits ("to annulment, 11) says) common," 8; context utterly One impossible decree implication-which precisely primary shifted root ("call back") bears common context, i.e., orders decrees ("cancel annul"). course acid test word reasonably bear particular you cocktail people funny. assigned surely fail test, late evening. Try telling someone, "Though cancel action, it." notion phrase "recall linguistically conceptually absurd. 50 seeks enlist fictitious. indeed Oxford back"; them adds fillip essential point-that called "retain vitality." 13. They say summoning back-which, decree, necessarily annulment.3 Further, dictionaries mentions chosen "antiquarian reproach," 12, 9, many do. Shorter obsolete, 2583 (1993), previous rare, 2134 1942). Chambers 1257 (1988), obsolete archaic, Cassell Concise 1149 (1992); Funk Wagnalls Standard 2104 (1957), 1992).4 51 analysis: Even justification normal adopts latter it) argument portion remains use. "called authorization. empowered term; "all part" prison; 52 opines needed, demonstrates metaphysical [can] over," ibid. thing. describes me "does read" way, concurrence "[t]his . says," substantive temporal sense-i.e., release-cannot possibly prison. released. __ 4) ("To respondent imprisoned diminishes concept intends convey"). unrealistic undermined §3583(g) spite "terminated," claim ongoing vitality. 2, supra. concluding place, reads treating drafted that-allowing rest adopted, supervised-release "revoked." 53 assumes, somehow "survives revocation," (even reactivation), Thus discretion remainder Yet "option." 13; accord, (Kennedy, part). confusing produce achieves -and entirely reasonable-if read differently read, irrelevant. contend reaches remarkable, carefully maintain- describe-that (a) justifies supervisory actual pertinent Hypothetical role play beside point. 55 next policy-framed inquiry "congressional purpose." 14. Citing history discussing issue), 14_15, views policies generally, written. "Our obligation," says, "is itself result." 10. not. Our obligation achieving prescribes-and further. stop where prohibition carrying ball few yards beyond. event, speaker except talks dog, "bar" proper canon present simple: "[W]here, plain, `the sole function enforce terms,' Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 241 (1989) Caminetti 242 470, 485 (1917)). 56 Perhaps scrivener's error exception canon, see, Holloway 526 19, (Scalia, dissenting); Green Bock Laundry Machine 490 504, 527_528 judgment), today's author describe inapplicable here: "This cry rare implementing patent absurdity demonstrably intentions drafters." BFP Resolution Trust Corporation, 531, 563 (1994) (Souter, dissenting) (citations omitted). broken seriously enough trusted status again; tempted inappropriately availability wished eliminate unattractive prospect through repetitions violation-reimprisonment-supervised-release sequence-which avoided requiring confronted (perhaps tightened lengthened permits) combine two. Because demanded prudent forthrightly stated ("[I]f failed," 15), whether, interpretive odor recast "seems unlikely" reimprisonment," ibid.). 57 Finally, appeals cannot cure ambiguous (which not), little relevance, Act's adoption significant break Mistretta 488 361, 366 (describing "sweeping reforms"); 407 (1991) unique method invented series reforms").6 effort equate 16-18, unpersuasive. Compare 3583(a) 4205(a), 4206 (repealed); USSG 7, 2(b). distinction important (unlike revoked), imprisonment; currently (on parole) place. Similarly, inherent sentence. 4205(a) ("Whenever confined definite year, shall eligible one-third different accorded appeal dire scarcity arguments conclusion.7 58 59 deals eliminate, future, today resolve. institution careless small things likely large ones; willful almost ones. purpose" supports matter great concern, tells circuit judges. overwhelming Appeals-9 11-notwithstanding viewed desirable arrangement, reached unambiguously text. Today's invites return headier days not-too-yore, laws judges knew ought mean. dissent. Notes 60 slightly differently, discussed below, focus crime. 61 consider issue, conclusion. Koehler, 973 F.2d 132 1992); Malesic, 205 (CA3 1994); Cooper, 962 339 Holmes, 954 270 (CA5 1993); McGee, 981 271 Behnezhad, 907 896 1990); Rockwell, 984 1112 (CA10 Tatum, 998 893 (CA11 Two, Eighth, grant Schrader, 623 (CA8 1992). 62 3. Eske, 189 536, 539 1999); Lominac, 308, 312 1998); Dozier, 119 239, 1997); Collins, 118 1394, 1397 1124 (addressing §3583(g)). contrast Eighth Circuits, relying broader construction concluded Sandoval, 69 531 (unpublished), 821 (1996); St. John, 92 761 1996). 63 4. Guidelines Commission, Manual §7B1.3, comment., (Nov. 1998) (USSG). So, too, federal courts. Hale, 107 526, 529, 1997). 64 5. failure specify evidences arguable diffidence Another 3553 limit applicability minimum sentences. §80001, 1985. explicit, "shall sentences 10th day Act." §80001(c), 1986. 65 6. Cisneros Alpine Ridge Group, 508 respondents developers entered contracts Department Housing Urban Development. When sought recalibrate payments owed contracts, sued, Ninth ruled Department's proposed calculating prohibited contracts. passed legislation authorizing calculation. resisted deprived vested contractual rights, Due Process (disagreeing holding) methodology acceptable signed. governmental declined attempt change 66 dissent erudite explanation senses words, intending demonstrate displayed "an language," "annul" indicate complete." 3_4 (opinion J.). virtuoso lexicography, rich textualists room creative readings. encounters difficulties; offense) possession controlled substance, 3583(g) ed.). 67 8. thinks "term" measure duration, 68 9. common, recent editions authoritative tag obsolete. five examples usage, albeit hardly ones: drawn 16th century 1784. 838 1989). OED unabashedly antiquarian; dates 1873. Ibid. Webster's, includes antiquarian reproach, third edition. remarks, uncommon word, departing prefers happen fails fit realization (here, favoring ability release) tension customary rules deliver. Commissioner Brown, 380 563, 571 (1965) (recognizing "some `scope adopting restricted literal usual acceptance thwart statute' ") Helvering Hammel, 311 510_511 (1941); re Chapman, 166 661, 667 (1897) ("[N]othing better settled, sensible construction, effectuate intention, and, possible, avoid unjust absurd conclusion"). implies stake, Scalia's cocktail-party textualism, 4, yield States. (Not sound criterion meaning: nips flask solecism gunner bird 6, 4; sober moments know dogs be. His mistake, gunner's notes, (It "literal" today, puts it; all.) us, usage: employed modern employing "revoke"? Usage guide master answering one. unacceptability dog ox jeopardizes severely sportsman ever threatened bird.) attributes strong preference 10, penal comes Congress. crucial. light policy); Caron 524 315 (1998) petitioner's "yields results likely, rational, policy"). believes invocation unjustified willful), rise unbidden jealous traditionally construe reach Chief Taney "its object policy." Heirs Boisdore, How. 113, 122 (1849). Marshall discover design legislature," "seize[d] aid derived." Fisher, Cranch 358, 386 (1805). 70 11. true drug Though 2.57(c) (1999). recently decided regulation inconsistent ed.), Evans Comm'n, 78 262 1996), affect backdrop against 1984. disagreement. imposed." 3653 (repealed). options post-revocation sentencing; disputed "sentence" 298_299 (collecting cases). dispute over counted powers baseline determined. probation. Probation, inability sentencings surprise. 71 12. misconstrue 11_12, claiming unilluminating inhered aside, thought valuable been. 72 traditional lenity interpreting demand Lenity equipoise competing otherwise resolved (not here), event Delphic generally lenient fixing 73 Describing perfectly O.K. are, houses, hairdos, batting stances, fine. Houses, existence apart convention, whereas convention-particular agreement represent concepts, languages) symbols sounds. admits says choosing ignore 74 correct, suggested difference comport §3583(g). contradicts terms-viz., "conclude[s] later," evidently (contrary §3583(g)) supervisee reimprisoned substance. "fundamentally contrary" scheme, asserts, "one 15. prescribes that. undermines 10_11. (hence extinguishing view), mine, mistake-which §110505, Brief 25, apprehended `terminate' inappropriate [in §3583(g)]"). concede §3583(e)(1) uncontradicted. 75 Third's "RECALL," annulment temporary (a "suspension"); repromulgation revocation-which along dipped obscure meanings "revoke": blends 76 Whether currency depends, think, counts figurative OED, showing "chiefly fig[urative]." Just emperor decree," "calling back"-i.e., canceling assuredly however-I usage-to connote ("Since ranging too afield, him.") chastises example, suggesting tippling hunter "dogs be." more. employs cancellation) envisions revoked-thus illustrating obscurity. relies, defines recall; animal thing." 1989) (OED). example follows: "These hounds acquainted masters watchwordes, eyther imboldening game." "not of" dogs-oxen well, OED's illustrates: "Ye patient Oxe unto Yoke." 838. 77 adjusts changing verb, "after allocated part) added). release"; revokes incompatible Switching redundant, "requir[ing] term," (USSG), contrary. quotes comment broad proposition `represent upon,' law." 16. much narrow data "starting point" devising ranges Guidelines. states: "Despite policy-oriented departures pre-guidelines guidelines upon, empirical data." sheds extent matters underlay meaningful general-and pertaining refer "a post-imprisonment created Act," 79 17, altogether inapt, governing violation, specifically allowed "impose "broader determined," 11; proves so. necessary contradict position. Special akin (repealed), circumstances Manso Detention Center, 182 814, 817 1999) reliance Commission's 1977 misplaced. presumed legislate existing administrative interpretations stretch cover subject, vintage, unsupported Bragdon Abbott, 624, 645 (repetition assumed incorporate "uniform body precedent" "settled meaning" provision); Haig Agee, 453 280, 297 (1981) (assuming awareness "longstanding construction"). unclear Fowler 94 835, 841

Category: 0