Judges: No credit time for repeatedly violating supervised release

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court agreed with its fellow Circuit courts that prior time served for violations of supervised release is not credited toward nor limits the statutory maximum a court may impose for subsequent violations of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3583(e)(3).

The issue arose in United States of America v. Steven J. Perry, 13-2182, in which the District Court in South Bend sentenced Steven Perry to a 5-year term of imprisonment as well as a 10-year term of supervised release in 2013. This was the second time Perry had violated the terms of his supervised release imposed in 2005 based on his 2003 offense. The probation officer mistakenly stated in his report that Perry was subject to the statutory minimum five-year term of imprisonment mandated by the current version of Section 3583(k).

But this was an error, the 7th Circuit held, because Perry was subject to the version of this statute in effect at the time of his initial offense. That version of Section 3583(k) authorized a maximum sentence of only two years; the amended version the probation officer relied on did not take effect until July 27, 2006, and is not retroactive.

Perry argued that this maximum two-year term of imprisonment should be reduced by three months that he served in prison in 2009 for a prior violation of his supervised release. The statute he relies on 18 U.S.C. Section 3583(e)(3) was amended in 2003 to include the phrase “on any such revocation.” Before the amendment was added, the Circuit courts interpreted this statute to allow credit time toward the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by statute. But since that amendment, every appellate court to address this issue has determined that language eliminates the credit time. The 7th Circuit agreed with its fellow Circuit courts.

The judges remanded for the District Court to sentence Perry to no more than two years imprisonment and to determine his conditions of supervision.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?