Court Opinion

ID: 9491451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:14:38.306364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:45.148447
License: Public Domain

GILMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority adopts the Ninth Circuit’s approach in United States v. Blake, 88 F.3d 824 (9th Cir.1996), holding that a prisoner’s term of supervised release should be reduced to account for any excess time served in prison. Because I believe that such an approach is contrary to both the plain language and the purpose of 18 U.S.C.. § 3624(e), I dissent. See United States v. Joseph, 109 F.3d 34, 38-39 (1st Cir.1997), and United States v. Douglas, 88 F.3d 533, 534 (8th Cir.1996); see also S.Rep. No. 98-225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3306-08 (discussing purposes of supervised release).
The statute clearly states that a person’s “term of supervised release commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment,” and that “[a] term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). The majority states that this' language must be read in light of the language in § 3624(a) that “[a] prisoner shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons on the date of the expiration of the prisoner s term of imprisonment. The majority concludes that this language alters subsection (e) to mean that a prisoner begins his term of supervised release on the date he was released from custody or should have been released from custody, whichever first occurs. This approach is inconsistent with the language of subsection (e), which is clear and unconditional in its requirements. The majority is thus attempting to fashion an equitable remedy for a perceived injustice.
Giving Johnson credit toward his term of supervised release for the excess time in prison, however, does not satisfy the purpose of the statute. Although Congress did not provide for the situation presented in this case, it is clear’ that the purpose of supervised release is to “facilitate ‘the integration of the violator into the community, while providing the supervision designed to limit further criminal conduct.’ ” Joseph, 109 F.3d at 38-39 (quoting U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A, cmt. 4, and refusing to “invent some form of automatic credit or reduction ... to compensate for ... increased incarceration.”). In contrast, imprisonment serves primarily to punish and incapacitate offenders. Id. at 39. Nonetheless, the majority holds that we may properly adjust the supervised release term to account for the extra time Johnson served in prison because “supervised release is also punitive in nature.”
The terms of supervised release may indeed be fairly restrictive. In my opinion, however, that fact should not cause this court to simply trade-off between a term of imprisonment and a term of supervised release. The fallacy of such reasoning is that a prisoner is not being reintegrated into society while still incarcerated. In an effort to do equity, the majority may be causing more harm than good by announcing a rule of law that excuses a prisoner under the circumstances of this case from participating in a program of supervised reintegration into society.
While Johnson’s case is compelling (he served two and one-half years in prison on a sentence that was later revoked), it should be noted that his sentence was not imposed erroneously at the time of sentencing. Rather, his sentence was revoked by a retroactively applied interpretation of the applicable *573statute by the Supreme Court in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). Under such circumstances, I believe that a more appropriate avenue for relief is an application to the district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). This statute authorizes the sentencing court to cancel a term of supervised release after it has been in effect for one year when “such action is warranted by the conduct .of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” See United States v. Spinelle, 41 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (6th Cir.1994)(holding that a statute requiring a three-year term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district court’s discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to § 3583(e)).
Because I believe that the majority’s approach is inconsistent with the purpose as well as the unconditional language of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), I respectfully dissent.