771 F.3d 849
5th Cir.2014Background
- Jay Oswalt was convicted of two counts of bank robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and received concurrent 63-month prison terms followed by concurrent 36-month terms of supervised release on each count.
- After release, the district court revoked supervised release for substance-use violations and ordered six months’ imprisonment on each count to be served consecutively (18 months total) and then imposed concurrent 24-month terms of supervised release on each count.
- Oswalt did not object in the district court to the supervised-release term but challenged it on appeal as exceeding the statutory maximum in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h).
- Oswalt’s argument: for each count the court must subtract the entire aggregate post-revocation imprisonment (18 months) from the 36-month statutory maximum, yielding an 18-month cap per count (so the imposed 24 months exceeds the limit).
- Government/district court position: the subtraction in § 3583(h) is count-specific — subtract only the term of imprisonment imposed on that particular count (6 months), yielding a 30-month cap per count; thus 24 months is permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3583(h) requires subtracting the aggregate post-revocation imprisonment across all counts from each count's supervised-release maximum | Oswalt: "any term of imprisonment" means all post-revocation terms must be aggregated and subtracted from each count's authorized supervised-release term | Government: subtraction is count-specific; subtract only the imprisonment imposed on the same count when calculating that count's post-revocation supervised-release cap | The court affirmed the district court: § 3583(h) is count-specific; subtract only the term imposed for that particular count, so 24 months per count was within the statutory limit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vera, 542 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2008) (interpreting "any term" in § 3583(h) in the multiple-revocation-for-single-count context)
- United States v. Zoran, 682 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding § 3583(h) is count-specific; subtract only postrevocation imprisonment for the same underlying offense)
- United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2002) (plain-meaning approach to "any" in § 3583(h))
- United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (aggregate-credit interpretation persuasive in voiding miscalculation)
- United States v. Brings Plenty, 188 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 1999) (consideration of legislative history in construing supervised-release formula)