United States v. George Ward
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20980
4th Cir.2014Background
- Ward pled guilty in 1994 to multiple felonies and received a 260-month prison term with a five-year supervised release; the prison term was later reduced to 200 months but the supervised release conditions remained.
- Upon release in 2010, Ward began a five-year term of supervised release with a condition prohibiting illegal possession of controlled substances.
- In 2013 the government sought to revoke Ward’s supervised release for cocaine and marijuana use; Ward admitted violations at a revocation hearing.
- The district court applied former 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) to impose the revocation sentence, finding a mandatory minimum of 20 months based on possession of controlled substances.
- Congress amended § 3583(g) in 1994 to eliminate the mandatory minimum; Ward argued the amended statute should govern because it was in effect when the underlying conduct occurred.
- The court concluded the former statute applied and that Alleyne does not govern revocation proceedings, given the special nature of supervised release revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of § 3583(g) governs? | Ward: amended § 3583(g) should apply; conduct occurred after amendment and retroactivity is possible. | Ward: former § 3583(g) controls because initial offense occurred under that version and retroactivity is not indicated. | Former § 3583(g) governs; retroactivity not shown. |
| Does the Savings Statute require applying the amended statute? | Ward contends Savings Statute favors amelioration and retroactive application. | Ward: no retroactive relief; penalties incurred under the former statute upon initial offense. | Savings Statute preserved former mandatory minimum penalties. |
| Does Alleyne apply to supervised release revocation for mandatory minimums? | Ward would have jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt for any mandatory minimum. | Revocation hearings are not criminal prosecutions; Alleyne does not apply. | Alleyne does not apply; no Sixth Amendment jury requirement in revocation context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 695 (2000) (initial offense governs retroactivity of amendments)
- Fareed v. United States, 296 F.3d 243 (2002) (savings and retroactivity in revocation context (4th Cir.))
- United States v. Smith, 354 F.3d 171 (2003) (initial offense controls statute applicability in revocation)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (savings statute and retroactivity with amended penalties)
- United States v. Perry, 743 F.3d 238 (2014) (initial offense governs sentence in revocation proceedings)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (jury determination required for mandatory minimums in criminal trials)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (elements and mandatory minimums require jury findings)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole/probation revocation rights are limited; not full criminal trial rights)
- Carlton v. United States, 442 F.3d 802 (2006) (revocation proceedings involve conditional liberty and reduced rights)