Court Opinion

ID: 9472962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:15:40.500048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:14.880491
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would follow United States v. Rice, 671 F.2d 455 (11th Cir.1982) and hold that where sentence has been originally imposed there is not a re-sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3653 but rather a reinstatement or reduction of the original sentence.
Xet us suppose a situation where the maximum sentence for the offense is two years, and the defendant receives a two-year sentence, with an initial six months’ confinement to be followed by eighteen months probation. He serves the initial six months’ confinement, and shortly following release he violates the terms of his probation and it is revoked. Under section 3653 the district court is now to “require him to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence.” Plainly, “the sentence imposed” means that imposed at the original sentencing, namely two years; and “any lesser sentence” means any that is less than that imposed at the original sentencing, namely any less than two years. If the district court “requires him to serve the sentence imposed,” he is required to serve two years, and, having already served six months, will then have eighteen more to serve. All agree on this. If on the revocation the district court “requires him to serve ... [a] lesser sentence” than that originally imposed, say a sentence of twenty-one months rather than two years, how much more time will he then have to serve? The majority presumably says he will then still have eighteen more months to serve, the same as if the revocation court had required him to serve the sentence originally imposed. And, if the revocation court requires him to serve a sentence of eighteen months, rather than either the original two-year sentence or the hypothetical twenty-one-month sentence, how much more time will he then have to serve? The majority presumably still says eighteen more months.
This, I submit, is illogical. Under the majority approach, where the revocation court, in the example given, requires the defendant to serve a “lesser sentence” than that originally imposed, the defendant is nevertheless required tó serve just as much time as if the revocation court had required him to serve “the sentence imposed.” Similarly, where the revocation court, in the example given, requires the defendant to serve a sentence which is three-fourths as long as that originally imposed, the defendant is nevertheless required to serve just as much time as if the revocation court had required him to serve a sentence seven-eighths as long as the original.
*1350The “require him to serve” language of section 3653 applies equally and without differentiation to both “the sentence imposed” and “any lesser sentence.” In each case what must be served is a sentence, not a part of a sentence. With reference to “the sentence imposed,” it is plain that the service of sentence contemplated by “require him to serve” includes the service of the initial confinement period. The same should be true of the identical words as applied to “any lesser sentence.” Indeed, it obviously is true with respect to all lesser sentences that are not lesser by as much as the initial confinement served. But section 3653 contemplates only two categories of required service, that of “the sentence imposed” and that of “any lesser sentence;” it does not contemplate a third category of service of sentences lesser than the original sentence by more than the initial confinement period.
The result reached by the majority would be correct if section 3653 contained an appropriate reference to the unserved portion of the sentence imposed. But it does not; it mentions only “the sentence imposed, or some lesser sentence.”
It seems to me that the simpler, clearer rule, not requiring us to speculate about each particular revocation court’s intent, is to follow the plain meaning of section 3653 and hold that where the revocation court requires a previously sentenced defendant to serve either the original sentence or any lesser sentence, the required service of sentence includes, and is not additional to, that already performed under the original sentence.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.*

 I join the majority opinion in its discussion and holding on the double jeopardy and equal protection issues. I also note that Ochoa’s original sentence, as well as the sentence he was required to serve under section 3653, included a final five-year special parole term.