United States v. Donte Island
916 F.3d 249
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Donte Island was sentenced in 2004 and received a 3-year term of supervised release that began June 26, 2013 and was set to expire June 25, 2016.
- In Sept. 2015 a probation officer filed a violation petition for technical breaches (failure to report, missed drug tests); the court issued a warrant that remained outstanding because Island evaded contact and was absent from supervision.
- On June 27, 2016 a second petition alleged a serious violation (shooting at police on June 21, 2016); a warrant issued that day and Island was arrested by state authorities the same day.
- The District Court later revoked Island’s supervised release and imposed the statutory maximum 24-month revocation sentence to run consecutively to his state sentence; Island appealed.
- The principal legal question was whether time while a defendant is a fugitive counts toward the supervised release term (i.e., whether the release term tolled during Island’s absence), affecting the timeliness/validity of the June 2016 warrant.
- The Third Circuit held that supervised release tolls while a defendant is fugitive, so Island’s supervised-release term had not expired when the June 27, 2016 warrant issued; the revocation was therefore within the court’s jurisdiction and was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervised-release time is tolled while a defendant is a fugitive | Island: § 3583(i) requires a warrant issued before expiration; his term expired before the June warrant so court lacked power to revoke | Government: earlier warrant and the doctrine of fugitive tolling mean the supervised-release term did not run while Island absconded, so the June warrant was timely | Court: Adopted fugitive tolling; time while absent from supervision due to deliberate flight does not count toward supervised release, so revocation was timely and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Buchanan, 638 F.3d 448 (4th Cir.) (supports fugitive tolling of supervised release)
- United States v. Barinas, 865 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (adopts fugitive tolling; aligns tolling with supervised-release purposes)
- United States v. Cole, 567 F.3d 110 (3d Cir.) (distinguishes deportation and imprisonment contexts; discussed re: expressio unius)
- United States v. Merlino, 785 F.3d 79 (3d Cir.) (held § 3583(i) jurisdictional and not equitably tolled)
- Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193 (U.S.) (principle that mere lapse of time does not constitute service of sentence)