United States v. Buchanan
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7555
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Buchanan absconded from five-year supervised release in 1995 and remained fugitive for about 13 years until 2008.
- A petition alleging violations of supervised release was filed in 1995 based on Ohio reporting failures and new charges; a warrant issued and stayed until 2008.
- Addenda filed in 2009 alleged post-term violations during fugitive period (1996 Alabama arrest, 2005 Missouri arrest, 2008 Georgia DUI and theft/identity crimes) and a 2008 Georgia identity theft charge after capture.
- District court tolled the supervised release term during fugitive status and revoked the release, imposing concurrent sentences of 48, 36, and 27 months.
- Buchanan argued lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate post-term violations not filed until 2009 because no warrant or summons issued during the term; the district court and Fourth Circuit held fugitive tolling applied.
- Buchanan was convicted and sentenced under Rule 3583(e) to revoke and imprison for violations arising both within and after the term, with the term tolling during the fugitive period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fugitive tolling applies to extend supervision after expiration. | Buchanan argues tolling applies only to imprisonment-based tolling via §3624(e); no explicit fugitive tolling. | The government contends tolling should apply to absences from supervision to preserve full service of the term. | Yes, fugitive tolling applies; term tolled during fugitive period. |
| Whether §3583(i) and expressio unius foreclose fugitive tolling. | Buchanan relies on expressio unius as showing only explicit tolling for imprisonment; argues no tolling for fugitives. | Court should tolerate fugitive tolling despite express provision for delayed revocation. | No; expressio unius does not preclude fugitive tolling. |
| Whether conduct during the fugitive period can be considered for sentencing on the initial violation. | Not explicitly necessary if tolling applies; conduct during fugitive period should be ignored for prior violations. | Conduct during fugitive period can inform deterrence at sentencing. | Conduct underlying violations may be weighed for deterrence; tolling governs the post-term adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ide, 624 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2010) (discusses tolling in context of supervised release)
- United States v. Barton, 26 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 1994) (jurisdiction to revoke after term when petition filed during term)
- United States v. Workman, 617 F.2d 48 (4th Cir. 1980) (probation revocation; no credit for time when not under supervision)
- Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193 (1923) (escape interrupts sentence; parole does not shorten term)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 53 (2000) (court limits exceptions to those Congress explicitly provides)
- United States v. Murguia-Oliveros, 421 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2005) ( Ninth Circuit applies fugitive tolling in supervised release)
- United States v. Hernandez-Ferrer, 599 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2010) (rejects fugitive tolling; tolling limited to imprisonment context)
- United States v. Janvier, 599 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 2010) (codified delayed revocation; tolling considerations)
- United States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2005) (tolling context for imprisonment; cited in discussion of §3624(e))