22 F.4th 430
4th Cir.2022Background
- Perez pleaded guilty in 2014 to possession with intent to distribute marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(D) and was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release.
- After supervised-release violations, the district court revoked release in 2019 and imposed a 6-month prison term plus 36 months of supervised release.
- Section 3583(h) limits supervised-release after revocation to the maximum period authorized by the statute of the original offense, less any imprisonment imposed on revocation.
- § 841(b)(1)(D) prescribes a supervised-release minimum of 2 years but is silent on any maximum; § 3583(b) generally caps supervised-release terms (Class D felonies: not more than 3 years).
- Congress amended § 841(b)(1) in 2002 to add the prefatory clause “Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18,” and the circuits (except the Fourth historically) have held that this allows § 841(b)(1) supervised-release terms to exceed § 3583’s caps.
- The district court held post-remand that § 3583(b) does not limit § 841(b)(1)(D) supervised release and reimposed the 36-month term; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) limits the maximum term of supervised release imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) | Perez: § 3583(b)’s 3‑year cap for Class D felonies applies, so the 6‑month prison term plus 36 months supervised release exceeds the § 3583(h) revocation maximum | Government/District Court: Congress’s 2002 “Notwithstanding section 3583” in § 841(b)(1) means § 3583(b) does not limit § 841(b)(1) supervised-release terms | Held: § 3583(b) does not limit § 841(b)(1)(D); § 841(b)(1)(D)’s supervised-release terms govern and the 36‑month term is authorized |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 1994) (held § 3583(b) capped supervised release for § 841(b)(1)(B) under the pre‑2002 statute)
- United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2001) (held § 3583(b) did not limit § 841(b)(1)(C) because the statutory minimum equaled § 3583(b) maximum)
- United States v. Sanchez-Gonzalez, 294 F.3d 563 (3d Cir. 2002) (held § 841(b)(1) controls over § 3583(b))
- United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2009) (concluded earlier contrary circuit precedent was abrogated by the 2002 amendment)
- United States v. Turner, 389 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2004) (explains absence of a statutory maximum often means life)
- United States v. Fernandez, 887 F.2d 465 (4th Cir. 1989) (construed "notwithstanding" to mean the statute should not be limited by other statutes)
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995) (presumption that statutory amendments have substantive effect)