Court Opinion

ID: 9817291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:12:45.562777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:47.519319
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the opinion of this court that United States v. St. John, 92 F.3d 761 (8th Cir.1996), governs the case before us. The St. John panel concluded the sentence imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised release is capped at the length of the original supervised-release term, id. at 766, rather than at the length of the term “authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). I write separately to state my view that this court should rehear this case en banc to reconsider the St. John ruling, which appears contrary to the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). See, e.g., United States v. Pla, 345 F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir.2003).