United States v. James Reginald Talley, 83 F.4th 1296

James Talley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced in 2016 to 100 months’ imprisonment followed by 3 years’ supervised release beginning May 10, 2018.
Supervision conditions required regular contact with probation, truthful responses to probation inquiries, and no association with convicted felons.
Probation lost contact with Talley after September 2020; a revocation petition and arrest warrant issued before his supervision expired in May 2021 based on failure to remain available and alleged impermissible associations.
Talley was not arrested on the federal warrant until May 2022, when Florida authorities arrested and later convicted him of felony battery (May–Aug 2022).
The district court applied a ‘‘fugitive tolling’’ theory, concluded Talley’s supervised-release term extended through his 2022 arrest, revoked his supervised release based in part on the 2022 battery, and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding fugitive tolling does not suspend or extend a supervised-release term; the court retained authority to revoke for pre-expiration violations but may only revoke based on conduct within its statutory jurisdiction (though it may consider post-term conduct at sentencing).

Issue	Talley’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether absconding from supervision tolls the supervised-release period	Talley: supervised release expired May 2021; court lacked jurisdiction to revoke for a 2022 offense	Government: fugitive tolling extends supervision while a defendant is at large, so jurisdiction covered the 2022 battery	Court: fugitive tolling does not apply to supervised release; statutory tolling provisions are exclusive; no tolling for fugitive status
Whether the court had jurisdiction to revoke based on failures to report before expiration	Talley conceded failure-to-report violation; did not dispute revocation jurisdiction for that pre-expiration charge	Gov: timely warrant was issued before expiration, so court could revoke for that violation	Court: jurisdiction to revoke for the pre-expiration failure-to-report existed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i); remand to consider revocation and sentence on that violation alone
Whether post-expiration criminal conduct may be considered in revocation sentencing	Talley: argued sentence should not rest on conduct occurring after supervised-release expiration	Government: court should consider post-expiration conduct (or toll the term) to avoid rewarding absconders	Court: even without tolling, court may consider post-expiration conduct when imposing sentence for a valid revocation; statutes and Guidelines permit consideration of later conduct

Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (explaining purpose and nature of supervised release)
Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193 (1923) (foundation for tolling doctrine in imprisonment context)
United States v. Hernandez-Ferrer, 599 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2010) (no tolling of supervised-release period for fugitive status)
United States v. Okoko, 365 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2004) (declining to toll supervised release during deportation; interprets exclusive statutory tolling provisions)
United States v. Island, 916 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2019) (applying fugitive tolling to supervised release)
United States v. Barinas, 865 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2017) (applying fugitive tolling to supervised release)
United States v. Buchanan, 638 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2011) (applying fugitive tolling to supervised release)
United States v. Murguia-Oliveros, 421 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying fugitive tolling to supervised release)