We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
THE OFFICIALS RESET THE GAME CLOCK
Ever think you’ve finally gotten to a win, only for some mook to put a second back on the clock?
It happened to Western Michigan a few weeks ago in Ann Arbor, letting the Wolverines steal an improbable victory from a team that was supposed to be a cupcake for the mighty U-M football machine.
It doesn’t just happen in the NCAA (which, by the way, admitted its error and said it wouldn’t happen again). It happened last week to Jose Santana-Robles. After Jose did his five years on a drug beef, he began 60 months of supervised release. Jose had a little trouble adjusting to supervised release: the 3rd Circuit said he “accumulated violations, including for testing positive for marijuana and leaving the jurisdiction without permission. In February 2024, the District Court issued a warrant for arrest for his violations. Over a year later, he was arrested in Oregon and was transported to Pennsylvania.”
Jose’s supervised release was revoked, and he was sent back to the BOP for 4 months, to be followed by another 24 months of supervised release. When he finished his 4 months in custody, he moved for early termination of the remainder of his supervised release term. His district judge declined.
Jose appealed. Last week, the 3rd Circuit held that he was not even eligible to ask for early termination, leaving alone the question of whether his judge was right to deny it.
Under 18 USC § 3583(e), defendants are eligible to ask the court to terminate the remainder of their term after serving one year of supervised release. The 3rd Circuit held, however, that Jose’s revocation reset the one-year clock. “The text, purpose, and history [of § 3583] all support the common sense reading that the one-year clock starts from the beginning of the current term of supervised release that a defendant may seek to terminate. Because Appellant filed his motion less than two months into his term of supervised release, his request was foreclosed by § 3583(e)(1) and the District Court did not have the authority to grant his request.”
Oh, Michigan fans… that final-second Iowa win last Saturday? Karma is a harsh mistress.
~ Thomas L. Root